Skip to main content

Full text of "Codex B and its allies - a study and an indictment - VOL 1 - (1914) by Professor Hoskier"

See other formats 


CODEX B 
AND ITS ALLIES 


A Study and an Indictment 


PART | 


BY 


H. C. HOSKIER 


AUTHOR OF 


“CONCERNING THE GENESIS OF THE VERSIONS OF THE N.T.”; 
**CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION’; 
AND EDITOR OF CoLLAtrions oF ‘‘THEr MorGANn GOSPELS,” AND OF 
THE GREEK CURSIVES 1§7 AND 604 (700). 


5 Bios Bpaxts, h 6 réexvy paxph, 
5 B& xaipbs dkds, 4] BE welpa opareph, 7 SE Kpiois yaAremh. 
Act 38 od pdvoy éavrdby mapéxew ra SdovTa modovTa, AAA 
xal voy voogovra, kal robs wapedvras, Kal Ta ewer. 


— Hippocrates (Aphor. I.) 


Codex B and Its Allies 


By Hoskier, H.C. 


Bernard Quaritch - 1914. 


THIS ESSAY 1S RESPECTFULLY 
DEDICATED TO 
THE NEXT BODY OF 
REVISERS 
IN THE HOPE THAT 
iP MAY PROVE OF SOME SERVICE 


TO THEM. 





Note - This book was originally posted FREE at www.archive.org 
Many other Free Ebooks available there. 


Books for your consideration 


It would be a mistake to suggest that we agree with all of the 
books we will list below. No book or author is perfect, and 
neither is this list. 


However, there is material in these sources, that do relate 
to the topic of the book in which this list is found, and these Ebooks 
are therefore listed for your potential consideration. 


Agree or disagree with them, Freedom of Choice and thinking 
belong to each individual. Make up your own mind. 


Codex B and Allies by Hoskier (review of Vaticanus, Sinait. and NKJV) 
Relevant to all versions and manuscripts, including Tischendorf, 
Wescott & Hort, J White, Burgon, Riplinger, Cumbey, etc 


Battle for the Bible by Professor Harold Lindsell 


All books by John William Burgon, Oxford, including 
Revision Revised 


New Age Bible Versions by Riplinger (often attacked though not 
much substantiated against, her own videos are available online 

and for Free) [Hidden Dangers of Rainbow by C.C. Is an old Standby 
as is New Age Messiah by same]. A Time of Departing by Youngen, 
and Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith are relevant here. 


Greek Text for comparison should be the 1550/51 version of 
Stephens(Estienne) [Textus Receptus] also versions 1860 Scrivener 
or Cura P.Wilson. 

Canon of the Old and New Testaments by Alexander (Princeton) 

All Books by George Stanley Faber (watch for other fabers) 

All books by Robert D. Wilson 

All Books by R.A. Anderson 

Sources of the Koran by Sir William Muir is significant in Textual 


Criticism concerning Apocryphal and Islamic literature, though not 
always in other contexts. 


PREFACE. 





od yiip ey Adye H Baordeia rot end GAN’ év Surdpet.—l Cor. iv. 20. 
...ékagtos 66 Breréra Tas erotcodopet—l Car, ili, 10. 
8 8é Aoerdy Cyretras év Trois oixovspuors iva mioTés Tis ehpeOH.—1 Cor. iv. 2. 

1. Ibis high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked. 

It had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently. 
TI had thought that time would cure the extraordinary Hortian heresy, but 
when I found that after a silence of twenty years my suggestion that 
Hort’s theories were disallowed today only provoked a denial from a 
scholar and a critic who has himself disavowed a considerable part of the 
readings favoured by Hort t it seemed time to write a consecutive account 
of the crooked path pursued by the ms B, which—from ignorance [ trow— 
inost people still confuse with purity and ‘‘ neutrality.” 

I proceed to ‘‘name” the aforesaid scholar, since he has challenged 
me. Dr. A. Souter began a review of my ‘Genesis of the Versions’ by 
saying that— It is the business of a eritie first to destroy his enemy's 
position before he seeks to build up his own.” 

He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of Mss as 
such, but added some very strong advice to hold my tongue as regarded 
commenting on the evidence so painfully accumulated, which he and 
others would use—but which I must not use or discuss. He said: “ We 
cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament 
textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the 
collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to 
others, at least meantime.” 

I refuse to be bound by such advice. I demand a fair hearing on 
a subject very near my heart, and with which by close attention for 
inany years I have tried to make myself sufficiently acquainted to be 
able and qualified to discuss it with those few who have pursued a 
parallel course of study. 

T present therefore an indictment against the ms B and against 
Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts. I do 








+ When this was written I believed that the Revised text to which Dr. Souter added 
gome critical apparatus (published by the Clarendon Press in 1910) really represented his 
views as to the text. He informs me, however, that I am mistaken, and that he favours 
practically the whole text of Hort, Yet I prefer to allow to stand what I have written 
above, because Dr. Souter withholds in his notes in certain places (¢.g. John xiii. 18 as 
to rivas pro ods) the evidence of B al. upon which the readings of Hort were founded, 
and which the Revisers rejected in those places. The inference is obvious and almost 
indubitable that Dr. Souter must agvee with the Revisers against Westcott and Hort in 
such places, or he would have given the alternative readings and the evidence for them 
in his notes. 

b 


i CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


not believe that the jurymen who will ultimately render a verdict have ever 
had the matter presented to them formally, legally, and in proper detail. 

A comparative study of the Versions has been made but by few. 
Tischendorf did the best he could, but often neglects a Latin Ms or 
the Aethiopic version when, for instance, standing alone with N. -In 
such cases N appears to be the only witness, but has support. 
Mr. Horner’s apparatus in his edition of the Gospels in the Sahidic 
dialect has some improvements on Tischendorf, but he has also 
overlooked many important little keys. 

I have endeavoured to bring out other points of vital interest for 
a full and complete understanding of the matter. 

Many errors of omission may yet be found in my own apparatus. 
I do not ask the critics to favour me with corrections of manifest slips, 
or of a printer’s error of a Greek accent, or as to whether Schepps 
is spelled Schepps or Schepss, I ask for a categorical answer count 
by count to my indictment of B,. I ask for intelligent discussion of how 
it would have been possible for an ‘‘ Antiochian ” revision to have dis- 
placed certain B readings had they been really genuine. And I ask for 
a proper explanation of certain Egyptian and Alexandrian features 
amounting to clear revision in the text of B and &, if we are to divorce 
them from Alexandria and Egyptian soil where they belong properly. 

I had not intended simultaneously to write out the history of &, 
which I have sketched in Part II. But this was early forced upon 
me, and will I think materially contribute to a proper grasp of the 
problems involved. 

Dr. Souter has said that “it is the business of a critic first to destroy 
his enemy’s position,” but I beg to observe that the enemy, under deepest 
cover of night, has already abandoned several important positions. And 
there is such a thing as a flanking movement which compels retirement or 
surrender without striking a more direct blow in front. Thirty years and 
more have been allowed for them to retire in good order. If the finale 
is to be a rout and a “sauve qui peut,” it is not owing to lack of patience 
on the part of the other side. But it will be owing to apathy, to 
unfaithfulness, to pride, to imcomplete examination of documentary 
evidence, and to an overweening haste to establish the “true”’ text 
without due regard to scientific foundations. 

If now I throw some bombs into the inner citadel, it is because from 
that Keep there continues to issue a large amount of ignorant iteration of 
Hort’s conclusions, without one particle of proof that his foundation 
theory is correct. 

It is impossible to reproduce or restore the text of Origen. Origen 
had no settled text.| A reference to the innumerable places where he is 








+ This is strong language, but compare Mark xi. 1/12, where Origen at different 
times employs two different recensions without seeming to observe it. 


PREFACE. iii 


upon both sides of the question, as set forth in detail herein, will show this 
clearly. Add the places where he is in direct opposition to N and B, and 
we must reconsider the whole position, pending which a return to 
Wetstein’s text might be an improvement. 

I ask for a patient hearing of what must take a considerable time 
in the telling (although I have condensed the matter as much as seemed 
possible), while I proceed to sing the Death-song of B as a neutral text, 


2. Now as to the supposed Antioch revision, and as to an Egyptian 
revision, history is very silent. I know of no book where the matter 
is succinctly sketched except ‘The Introduction to the Old Testament 
in Greek,’ by Dr. Swete (1900). Here (p. 78 seg) Dr. Swete distin- 
guished between the later and the earlier Hesychius, and seems to 
accept as probable that Phileas and Hesychius (the earlier) at the end 
of the third century, with or without Pachymius and Theodore, engaged 
in Egypt in a revision of the Greek New Testament scriptures as well 
as of the Old Testament. And it is to be assumed that St. Jerome 
was referring to this Hesychius as to a revision possibly of both 
Testaments. The Decret. Gelasii to which Dr. Swete refers (p. 79) 
speaks of an Hesychins, but of whom it is difficult to judge as the date of 
the Deer. is uncertain.t But whether the labours of the earlier Hesychius. 
and of Phileas may not be involved in the charge, some things in the 
following pages seem to suggest, and possibly the labours of the several 
men of the name of Hesychius were somewhat confused in later times. 

As to Lucian, with or without Dorotheus, and his presumed revision 
of the Scriptures at Antioch, probable as this may be, we are again in 
a difficulty. This Lucian died in 312, but he is not the same Lucian 
[circa 120-190] to whom Origen [186-253] refers as having probably 
altered the Scriptures (contra Celsum ii. ch. xxvii). ‘“ Now I know of 
no others who have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and 
those of Valentinus and I think also those of Lucian.” 

To Lucian and Hesychius together Jerome refers in his letter to 
Damasus: ‘ Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nun- 
cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio quibus utique 
nec in (toto) veteri instruamento post septuaginta interpretes emendare 
quid licuit nec in novo profuit emendasse cum multarum gentium linguis 
scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt.” This 
certainly refers to the second Lucian and probably to the first Hesychius. 

In his praefatio ad Paralip. Jerome says: “ Alexandria et Aegyptus 
in Septuaginta suis Hesychium landat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque 
Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has pro- 
vinciae Palaestinos codices legunt; quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius 





t As to the date of the Decretum Gelasii itself see article by F. C. Burkitt in 
‘ Journal of Theol. Studies’ for April 1918, p. 470, 


b 2 


iv CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


et Pamphilius vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate 
compugnat....’’ Here he is certainly only referring to the O.T. directly. 

Whether or not Hesychius 1 and Phileas are the ones responsible 
for the Egyptian revision of the New Testament, there was evidently such 
a revision, which is what the following pages are concerned to exhibit. 

I do not deny that Lucian 1 perhaps also revised the New 
Testament about the same time (circa 290 A.D.) at Antioch, and that 
therefore, as Hort allowed, the Textus receptus foundation is synchronous | 
as to age with the other forms of text. 

But Ido not see how it is possible to accord to the NB group any 
general neutral base as against the other text, or to see any way out 
of the difficulty except an assumption that the NB group represent this 
Egyptian and Hesychian (1) revision, with traces here and there, it is true, 
of a foundation common to an earlier form shared by both Antiochian 
and Egyptian bases before either revision took place. 

The principal point involved is: ‘“‘ Who ts responsible for the greater 
revising?” And the answer seems decided that the NB group should 
be given the palm. Otherwise we cannot explain the facts. For it is 
inconceivable that Lucian Ir or anyone else removed what are con- 
sidered such good readings in NB as: 


Matthew vi. 7. uoxperast (pro eOvixot) 
XVii. 15. xaxws eyes (pro xaxws Tacye.) 
xix. 4. xricas (pro romoas) 
xx. 34, oppatov (pro opParpav) 
xxii. 10. vupdov (pro yapos) 
Mark v. 36. wapaxoucas (pro axovcas) 
vii. 4. pavtic@vtat (pro BarticwvtTat) 
x. 16 xarevroye (pro evroyet) 


Luke xi. 33. dws (pro peyyos) 
xii. 28. audiaber (pro audsevvucr) 
xii. 56.. ova odare Soxtpatkew (pro ov Soxipalere) 
xxii. 55. weptaravrav (pro ayavrwv) 
xxiv. 33. 7Oporcpevous (pro curd poropevous) 


John iv. 15. Ssepywpae (pro epywpar) 
xi. 57. evrodas (pro evrornr) 
xix. 41. nv tePetyevos (pro ereOn) 


On this ground alone then, however pure or impure, neutral or 
expanded, may be the narrative in the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan 
text, it shows a base in such places free from the “ improvements ”’ 
made in Hgypt. 

Until this matter be disproved, and I see not how it can be done 
away with, we must refuse to allow the priority or purity of the NB recen- 
sion over that of Constantinople and Antioch as to genuine neutral base. 


PREFACE, v 


My thesis is then that it was B and & and their forerunners with 
Origen who revised the ‘‘ Antioch ” text. And that, although there is an 
older base than either of these groups, the “Antioch ” text is purer in 
many respects, if not ‘‘ better,” and is nearer the original base than much 
of that in vogue in Egypt. 

I have recently published a fresh collation of Evan 157. I was 
anxious to do this for several reasons, but I was surprised at the 
result; principally because I found that the text of the ms had, like 
so many others, passed through Egypt at some time and become 
imbued with a good many coptic readings which are of such a nature 
that they could only have been obtained through the agency of a 
graeco-coptic document. 

This matter illustrates our point very thoroughly and very decidedly. 
Where 157 opposes NB and coterie we are to suppose that upon its 
return to Constantinople the archetype of 157 was subjected to a 
rigorous comparison with a standard which caused the removal of all 
the ‘‘ good” readings of the NB group! Such a thing is unthinkable. 
On the contrary, 157 is a good example of a text full of “old” readings 
and having a very ancient base, yet not ‘improved ” on the principles 
of 8B. Bui all this will develop as we proceed with our examination. 


Dr. Souter has said further of me in his review of my ‘ Genesis of 
the Versions,’ ‘‘ It is rhetoric and perhaps something worse to say that 
Hort’s whole classification is now admitted to be wrong (p. 387). Mr. 
Hoskier would find it difficult to prove this.” 

In reply to this, I will only say that in the same volume under review 
T had quoted Burkitt and others on this very point, and given their own 
language. But I will be still more precise here and subjoin some of the 
remarks which can be gathered from a rapid glance at the writings of 
Kenyon, Burkitt, and Turner, without mentioning Merx. 


“There remain the ‘ Neutral’ and ‘ Alexandrian’ groups, tf we accept 
Hori’s classification.” —Crum and Kenyon, J.T.8. vol. 1. p. 432, ‘Of the 
middle-Egyptian graeco-coptic fragment.’ 


“ Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where 
the text of Hort is wrong; but it is right, as it were, rather because a sort 
of divining instinct, the result of his long acquaintance with his material, 
led him to the truth, than because he had really, at least In the sense that 
Hort and von Soden have done, argued out his principles.” —-C. H. Turner, 
J.T.S. vol. xi. p. 183, ‘ Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the N.T.’ 

[But Tichendorf ‘argues out his principles” on every other page 
of his N.T., and although he often follows B against &, it is N as a 
“neutral” text that he is following just where Turner no doubt agrees 
with his critical acumen.—H.C.H. ] 


: 


Vi CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


“ Some few of these ‘ interpolations’ may possibly not be interpolations 
at all, but portions of the true text which have fallen out of NB... . 

“As soon as the Latinity of the ‘Italian’ group is studied without 
special reference to the type of Greek text represented by the various 
mss, tt becomes at once evident that Dr. Hort’s classification ts unsatis- 
factory. The first blow to it was dealt by Mr. White in his edition 
of g....”-—-F. C. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, vol. iv. No. 3, ‘The Old 
Latin and the Itala,’ pp. 52 and 55. 


The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of SB. The 
Old Syriac sometimes supports the true text of the NB family, where N 
singly or B singly deserts the family to side with a later variation; is it 
not therefore possible, and indeed likely, that in some instances X and B 
may both have deserted the reading which they ought to have followed, 
and that they and not S (= syr sin) are inconsistent? That’ & and B 
occasionally ” [over 3,000 real differences betweeti N and B are recorded 
in the Gospels alone !—H.C.H.] “ are inconsistent with themselves appears 
certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it 
presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be 
the fragment of a rival variant. Thus at Matt. xxiii. 26.... Other 
instances are... . In all these instances” [Matt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 26, 
xxvil. 17, Luke xi. 33, xix. 37] “B presents us with what is evidently 
a doctored text.”—F. C. Burkitt, ‘Hiv. da Mepharreshe,’ vol. ii. pp. 2383/4. 


Now in the following pages I submit a vast number of other 
instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored. 
Hort and my side cannot both be right in their estimate of this “‘ neutral ”’ 
text. I claim merely that it is not neutral, and may not be followed 
unless standing with strong independent company apart from the other 
usual ‘Egyptian’ supporters. I had thought von Soden agreed with me, 
but his new text is very eclectic, and I wish to submit my side of the 
question independently of his views. I have had no correspondence with 
him on the subject. Adalbert Merx is decidedly on my side. 


{Notz.—As to Hesychius referred to on p. iii we have really to 
distinguish between four men of this name (and possibly a fifth may lurk 
between them). 

Hesychius circa 200 in Egypt. 

Hesychius the Alexandrian and lexicographer ca. 880. 

Hesychius of Jerusalem stated as 0b. 609 by Gregory, but in Gallandius 
vol. xi. Pref. p. vii as ob. in 433 or 436. To this man is 
attributed the Concordance or harmony republished (?) by 
Severus in 513. 

Hesychius of Miletus circa 540, author of an Onomasticon and 
Chronicon. | 


INTRODUCTION, 


Havra boxiudfere * rd xaddv xaréyere.—1 Thess. v. 21. 


Tiveode rparefira: Séxiwou.—Apelles Epiph. 
Origen Job 


Zou yap, hnolv [6 Kiptos}, dvepwre, rots Méyous pov ds dpy’ptoy emi rpaneCiray Kai &s 
Xphyara Soxtpdoat,—Clembhon. 


I suppose that it will readily be conceded that C. H. Turner is 
without question the most brilliant writer on Textual Criticism today. 
It is always a pleasure to read him, and to be carried along in his racy 
and well-balanced style, which shows large mastery of the historical side 
of the problem as far as we have gathered it to-day. But there are 
certain weak points in his argument. I refer particularly to his article 
in the J.T.S. for January 1910,t which I think shows a smaller 





t ‘Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.’ 
V: The Languages of the Early Church; (B) Syriac and the first Syriac Gospels. 

Turner’s two examples in textual criticism (Matt. i. 16 and Luke xiv. 5) are 
distinguished, as usual, by a perfectly lucid view of matters which would surely lead him 
a long way as a helpful master in the science if he would collate certain texts with 
each other and get at the many suggestions for the origin of error which abound when 
the documents themselves are consulted. Thus, as to ovos and wos in Luke xiv. 5 the 
origin of the change may perhaps be referred merely to the propinquity of other words 
With similar commencement or termination. If he will turn up the Codex Sinaiticus 
the following will be found: 

CENKAIANOKPIOle 


NPOCAYTONEINEN 
TINOCYMWNONoe 
HBOYCEIC@PEAPNE 


At first sight it looks as if the corrector had misplaced YC (YIOC) over the wrong 
ON, but he is apparently correcting avrov to avrovs. It is possible that a similar change 
where YC was written by mistake over the wrong ON (in ONOC) led to the trouble. 


Now if we turn to B: AYTONKAIAMEAYCEN 
KAINPOCAYTOYCEINE 
TINOCYMWNYIOCHBOY:s 
ElICPPEAPMECEITAIK 


we find veos comes below avrovs, a8 in N oves comes below avroy. Hence there was a 
possibility of error oculi in both places, making for vios in one and ovos in the other. 
A faint or interlined original therefore may be the cause of the trouble, as we see from 
syr cu’s conflation. 

Note further that AS and U have OYIOC, retaining an O, while D’s zpofaroy is 
faithfully reproduced in @ OVIS (ovis et bobis), We may even hazard that OVIS might 
have influenced ONOC in that dim reriod when “‘ Western” and ‘“‘ Alexandrian ”’ texts 
were linking up, 


viii CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


acquaintance with the testimony of the mss themselves than I expected 
to find in his writings. 

On p. 1883/4 he says ‘‘ Hort was the last and perhaps the ablest of 
a long line of editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the 
eighteenth century, who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly 
in the end, threw over the later in favour of the earlier Greek MsS: AND 
THAT ISSUE WILL NEVER HAVE TO BE TRIED AGAIN. In Hort’s hands 
this preference for the earlier MSS was pushed to its most extreme 
form....” 

This sentence seems to me to lack a grasp of what the testimony of 
the later documenis ts (as evidenced by the contents of those which we 
know) and what the testimony may be of those which are yet unexamined, 
of which of course there are hundreds and hundreds. 

To take Rendel Harris’ 892, published in 1890, or Schmidtke's Paris 
nat®’ for example (the latter variously known as Scrivener 743, or 
Gregory 579, or von Soden ¢ 376, olim Reg 2861, olim Colbert 5258) 
which was published in 1903, we find texts which at first sight are in 
large accord with NBLYW. Yet if we examine them more closely, as I 
have had occasion to do in reading them a score of times, we find a 
strange state of things. For if, where they accord with NBLY, they are 
supporting the genuine reading, what are they doing when they are 
aberrant, as we find on every page? What are they doing when they 
accord with the ‘ Antioch” side, or with 28 or 157 or the Syriac alone, 
or when they have their own peculiar way of exhibiting the text? If 
the question be closed, as Turner says: ‘and that issue will never have 
to be tried again,” how are we to judge of the issues where N and B are 
opposed, in over 3,000 places? for he says on p. 183 just previously: 
“Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where 
the text of Hort is wrong....” It is in such places that I claim the 
testimony of 892 or Paris®’ as invaluable for ‘‘ control.” A deep study 
of the phenomena involved in this is imperative, for the question which 
arises in such cases is whether this text antedates the common base 
of XB or not.t 

Turner has a reference to an Oxyrynchus papyrus which claims our 
attention next. In this connection let it be understood that the oldest 
documents in profane literature unearthed by Grenfell and Hunt are 





t It is well. to bear in mind at all times that the questions at issue are not those 
of the xvi century versus those of the rv. It is a question of the mss of the 
iv" + L¥ of vur/ix + RTQ of vi/v [WX with D occupying a position midway] 
against a large band of other uncials of nearly the same dates. The textual questions 
involved are all back of the iv“ cent. In other words it is not a question of Turner’s 
“later mss in favour of the earlier Greek mss,” but as to who was right a.p. 125-400, 
when these questions arose. Turner is misstating the case. Hort did not do this. 
He recognised the Textus receptus aa being quite as old as 850 a.p. or older. 


INTRODUCTION. ix 


often woefully inferior in places to more modern documents of the same 
citings, and often very corrupt.t 

On pp. 185-6 Turner writes: ‘“‘The discovery, since Hort wrote, 
of a papyrus leaf containing most of the first chapter of St. Matthew 
in a text closely agreeing, even in spelling of proper names, with the 
text of B, may be fairly held to carry back the whole B text of the 
Gospels into the third century.” 

Why “the wHoLE B text”? I wonder. Does Turner not know 
that it is unallowable for a serious textual critic so to express himself. 
The four Gospels are most frequently in Mss found to be of different 
recensions although bound together. After the many Christian per- 
secutions during which the fragile documents of the Faith were in 
jeopardy every hour, it seems that it was difficult to obtain the four 
Gospels together to be recopied. Indeed—judging from certain early 
Syriac documents in the British Museum, as well as from the varying 
order of the Gospels as recopied and bound—it was the practice in the 
early centuries to carry one or two Gospels bound together. Hence, 
after the stress of a persecution had abated, and a Church copy of the 
Tetra-evangelion was required, it was often unconsciously made up of 
different recensions. Therefore, because B accords in St. Matthew with 
the Oxyrynchus papyrus, No. 2 (plate i) vol. i. 1898, it does not 
necessarily follow that the same applies to the other three Gospels.t 
This in first place. But, secondly, does B find the support claimed 
by Turner here (and by Burkitt, ‘Introduction to Barnard’s Clement of 
Alexandria,’ Texts and Studies, vol. v. No. 5), or is not thig exaggerated ? 
The biblical piece referred to is the merest fragment, a veritable trifle, 
containing Matt. i. 1-9, 12, 14-20. As to date G. and H. say: ‘‘ There 
is no likelihood of its being subsequent to the beginning of the fourth 
century, and it may with greater probability be assigned to the third.” 
Shall we call it ap. 275 then? This only carries the B text of this 
portion back fifty or sixty years or so anyhow. After a collation, G. and H. 
sum up thus: ‘The papyrus clearly belongs to the same class as the 
Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and has no Western or Syrian proclivities. 
Except in cases where it has a reading peculiar to itself alone, the 
papyrus always agrees with those two mss where they are in agreement. 
Where they differ, the papyrus does not consistently follow either of 
them, but is somewhat nearer the Vatican codex, especially in matters 
of spelling, though in one important case (rod &¢ "Invot Xpsorod) it 
agrees with the codex Sinaiticus,” 











+ Note also the following opinions: “There is this peculiarity about the mss of the 
treatise De statu anwmae [of Claudius Momertus] that their value is in almost inverse 
ratio to their age.”-—Sanday, ‘Classical Review,’ Feb. 1888. 

“ However, a8 we shall see later, age is no certain criterion of value,”—L. J. M. Bebb, 
‘ Studia Biblica,’ vol. ii. No. 5, p. 201 (1890). 

t Obs. Soden's us 050 with N in Matt. and John, with BD in Mark, avith B in Luke. 


x CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Now hear Dr. Burkitt before we proceed (op. cit. pp. viii, x/xi) : 
‘‘Mr. Barnard has. paid a longer and less hurried visit than Dean 
Burgon’s flying call. He has copied out all the marked places in 
Clement’s bible as far as the Gospels and Acts are concerned..... 
Before actually examining Clement’s quotations let us for a moment 
consider what we might have expected to find. Since the publication 
of the Revised Version and Dean Burgon’s strictures on it, investiga- 
tions and discoveries have been made which bear directly on the subject. 
The general result is quite clear. Whether S and B are, as Dean Burgon 
has it, ‘two false witnesses,’ B, at least, can no longer be regarded 
as a mere ‘curiosity.’ There can now be little doubt that this ms 
represents in the Gospels with great accuracy the type of text current: 
in Egypt from the middle of the third century AD., although B itself 
may very well have been written at Caesarea in the famous library of 
Pamphilus. The Egyptian proclivities of B have been well illustrated by 
three comparatively recent publications. .... The most striking discovery 
of all remains. In the Oxyrynchus papyrus fragment of St. Matthew, 
discovered and edited by Grenfell and Hunt, we have at last an 
undoubted piece of a third-century Gospel us. The fragment is older, 
probably by a century, than any known ms of any part of the New 
Testament, and most fortunately covers a passage where the variants 
are extremely well marked (viz. Matt. i. 1-20). What, then, does this. 
voice from the dead say? Does it support Burgon or Hort? The 
answer is most decided. It sides with N and B. With & and B (and 
of course ‘ Westcott and Hort’) it has Boest for Booz, Iobed for Obed, 
Asaph} for Asa. Nor is this agreement confined to the spelling of the 
names of Jewish kings, seeing that it has yéveows in Matt. i. 18 (not 
yévvnows), & reading characteristic enough of B and Dr. Hort to draw 
forth three pages of Dean Burgon’s indignation. Other readings of B 
similarly attested by the new fragment are Sevyparicas for wapadevypatioas 
(ver 19) and the omission of o Bacidets in ver 6, and of yap in ver 18. 
Nor does the papyrus give support to ‘ Western’ texts any more than 
to the ‘ Received Text.’ Both in vv. 16 and 18 it rejects the readings 
of Codex Bezae and its allies. In one word, it is just such a document 
as Dr. Hort would have expected it to be.” So far Burkitt, 

Commenting on this, the first thing which attracts our attention is 
the notice of —o Baordrevs in ver 6, followed by the statement that “the 
papyrus gives no support to ‘Western’ texts.’ Yet, the omission of 
‘6 Baotheus is found in the Latins § g g. k gat dim and vulgates JM with 





ft = Coptic, as the Coptic in Luke iii. 82, but there not NB. 

} Consult Salmon, ‘Some Thoughts on Textual Criticism,’ as to this. 

§ I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake in my ‘Gen. of the Versions,’ 
vol. ii. p. 200, where I ssid “(non Oxyr*]” for this omission. G.and H. professed to give 
a collation with the Text. recept, and W-H, but were silent as to verse 6, and I failed to 
compare the original text. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Auct op imp. However this is a small matter. 


xi 


There is practically no 


opportunity in these few verses for much variation. What I object to is 
the generalisation as to the conformity of B to the Oxyrynchus fragment 


from these very few verses. 
overrated and quite spasmodic. 
fragment: 


CoLLATION OF B WITH Oxy". 


As a mutter of fact the agreement is 
Here is a collation of B and the 


AGREEMENT. DISAGREEMENT. 
Matthew. 
ae | Oxyr. YY B YIOY 
i, oy AAYIA B AAYEIA 
3 ZAPE ! 
4 |, AMMINAAAB dis B AMEINAAAB bis 
5 BOE (but so also § copt k) 
IWBHA ( 5» NCA copt al.) | 
6 ~-ofasirevs ( 4, 4, NMaletlait’)! , AAYIA dis B BAYEIA bis 
COAOMWNA( ,, —,,. most Mss) 
» THC OYPEIOY B THC TOY 
OYPEIOY 
7 | » ABLENA prim B ABIA 
jos ABEIA see B ABIA 
7/8 ACAD { » » NCDal) | 
8/9 OZEIAN -OZEIAC (but papyrus is faint | 
and pr loco looks like OZIAN) ‘ 
9-12" missing i eI e 
12 | » SPELNHCEN] prim BO CENNA prim t 
(4 tleg B TON CEAABIHA 
i 4, leg B CEAASIHA AE 
i TENNA t 
13 : 13/14 Oxyr. illeg but: N ABIOYT (ef lat) 
14 = 
15 ( Oxyr. MAGC@AN bis B MAGEOAN sic dis 
16 io «=©6IWCHd B TON IWCH 
17 | os CENEGAI B AI CENEAL 
(ag AYIA prim B AAYEIA prim 
' 5, AAYLA’ sec B AAYEIA sec 
oo» ter B AGKATECCAPEG 
i ter 
18 TENECIC (but so also NCPSZa) 4 TY X¥ B XY iY 
~— yap ( oo» oy RC*Z ete} i 
19 | 4, AGIFMALTIEICAlt B AEITMATICAI 
AAYIA B AAYEIA 


20 : 
: My 


+ Cf Protev™ ad Lue i. 31. 


¢ Burkitt claims this as against wapaderyuatioos 
but it is not absolutely clear whether the papyrus 


i 
\ 
| had zapa, 


G. and H. merely say “ there is barely 


room for rapa at the end of the line.” 


Now this more complete tabulation is rather interesting. 
proves Burkitt’s case as against Burgon then “figures lie.” 


Tf ié 
I do not 


wish to draw any conclusions against B from the comparison, but as to 
the few agreements supporting the views of any particular school of 
criticism the matter is simply absurd. Far more important than BOEC 


XH CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


IWBHA or —o Bacvrevs is the Oxyr opposition to B’s yewva in ver 12. 
And to dogmatise about a matter of 17 verses is unworthy of serious 
consideration when the real weighty matters are outside of the range of 
comparison. This ‘“ voice from the dead’’ no more supports Hort than 
Burgon. The questions at issue do not turn on spelling (and here even 
the deductions drawn are wrong) but on what is the ‘‘true” text: 
whether Lucian’s revision (if it equate ‘“ Antioch”) or Hesychius’ 
revision (if it equate “‘ Higypt’”’) is the right text. To close the matter, as 
Turner suggests, is to sit down and be content with NBLTWY as repre- 
senting merely an ‘‘ Egyptian’ agreement inter se. But, as I have said, 
what are we to do when they differ? We are certainly not going to 
waver simply between N and B. That would be a reductio ad absurdum. 
I write this feeling most earnestly that we have much to learn from the 
junior documents, and Turner is so capable a man that I dislike to read his 
dictum “and that issue will never have to be tried again ”—that is to say 
the issue between the later and the earlier (= NB) mss. It is not so. 
The issue is not decided as to whether the “revision at Antioch” or the 
“revision in Egypt” represents the best text. In each case it is to be 
presumed that the revisers thought they were perpetuating the “‘ best” 
text; but whether the “true” text (as the self-appointed arbiters t 
of the text of the N.T. since Hort are prone to write) remains a question 
still absolutely sub judice. 

Before leaving Turner’s article a most important matter must be 
referred to. He writes (pp. 204/5) : ‘‘ The first stages, then, of the history 
of the Syriac New Testament are represented for us by-a Gospel Harmony 
constructed out of a Roman Greek ms of the Gospels i in the third quarter 
of the second century.. 

Observe, a Boman-Greek Ms, but by this he does not mean a graeco- 
latin (for on p. 184 he accepts the common view of the Latin: ‘ the first 
stratum of the old Latin version in the African Mss k and e’’), but he 
means only a Greek ms of Roman provenance. So much then is 
definitely accepted today, 7.e. that Tatian’s harmony was based on a Greek 
ms used by him im Rome and no doubt carried away with him circa 
A.D. 175. Hence, then, the matters which we find in agreement between 
Tatian and certain “‘ Western’ authorities. Good, so far as it goes, but 
it does not go far enough. In the first place, we find in Tatian many 
cases where his text agrees with the Latin, not the “ Western” Greek, 
but only with the Latin. How does this occur if the Latin was non- 


« 


+ In the general scheme of textual criticism the examples given by Hort to sustain 
his theory of families are painfully inadequate. ‘“ Syrian” or later readings are found 
abounding in certain documents like Paris” side by side with what are probably judice 
Hort “ pre-Syrian,” yet the text does not carry signs of a revision which made an 
eclectic text. This document when carefully read bears evidence of being a whole 
before a.p. 400, and the “Syrian” part of this text cannot be separated from 
“pre-Syrian.” 


INTRODUCTION. Xiil 


existent in Tatian’s day in Rome? The answer has been given that it is 
the Diatessaron which has so largely influenced the Latin. I deny this 
in a large measure and look on the contrary for the origin of this 
sympathy to a Latin-Greek bilingual at Rome before a.p. 175 and not 
only to a ‘‘ Roman-Greek ms.” 

If I am correct, this destroys the theory, accepted by Turner 
purely on historical grounds (but how silent is history as to most of the 
matters involved!), that the separate Gospels in Syriac followed and 
did not precede the Harmony. Because at the outset it seems to be a 
fact that the Latin did not influence the Syriac, but the Syriac the 
Latin. There is a priority of action of Syriac on Latin as against Latin 
on Syriac. 

Therefore if there was a Graeco-Latin in Rome in 175 A.p., there 
must have been a Syriac still earlier. 

Next, if to the Diatessaron we are to attribute reflex action on Latin 
documents, how are we to account for the cases where the whole mass 
of Latin documents (widely separated geographically as to their recopy- 
ing and revision) together oprosE the Syriacs? 

I have stated before and repeat here that there is every evidence 
remaining in certain Greek and Latin documents, taken in conjunction 
with the varying elements in the existing mss of syr vet, syr pesh, syr lier 
and the diatess arab (not to speak of pers, which combines elements of all 
the Syriacs but principally of sy7 vet), to show that a lost or hidden Syriac 
precedes them ; and that this lost Syriac influenced both Latin and Greek 
documents, when running concurrently in the early part of the second 
century, and before Tatian’s Diatessaron was planned. I wish to see 
this disproved if possible, not by the historical method, but by a reply 
based on documentary evidence, before surrendering the position to which 
my study of the documents has led me. 

The diatessaron alone cannot be responsible for the spasmodic agree- 
ment between Latin and Syriac documents, because the various Latin 
documents often as a whole oppose the Syriac documents as a whole. 
Attention is directed to this in many passages coming under discussion in 
the following pages, and Dr. Vogels is requested to observe this carefully. 
Note Dr. Meinertz’ review of Vogels in Theologische Revue 1918, No. 18, 
p. 588 col. 1, as to Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40: “ Solche Beobachtungen weisen 
auf Schwierigkeiten hin, die noch der Lésung harren.” 


Preface 


CONTENTS. 


PART I. 


Introduction 


CHAPTER 


Il. 


III. 


IV. 


VII. 


VIII. 


Hort’s critical principles 
B in St. Matthew's Gospel , 

Editing—Solecisms—Latin syiipachy=<Coplic: aympathy — 
Syriac traces—Form—Synonyms — Grammatical changes 
(32-44) — Harmonistic — General improvement (48-68)— 
Conflict with Origen. 

B in St. Mark’s Gospel 

General—Editing—Solecisms—Latin seiiithiy Oo pis 
Latin and Coptic—Syriac— Form —Synonyms— Homoioteleu- 
ton—Grammatical changes (91-104)—Harmonistic—General 
improvement (107-114)—Diction of Mark—Improvement 
and Change without improvemert—Opposition to the harder 
reading—Conflict with Origen. 

Concerning the Latin Version of St. Mark . 

General—As to D# a and d—As to b—Testimony of the 
Catacombs—As to c—The Irish texts—Base of St. Mark— 
Mark vi. 36—Retranslation in W—In others. 

Two or more Greek recensions of St. Mark 

Selected examples of varieties of readings and renderings 
throughout the Gospel. 

Concerning the Latin base of St. Mark. ‘ 

Farther remarks as to the unity of @ and the Ttala as a 
whole—As to difficulties at i. 41, iv. 6, iv. 15, vi. 31, xiv. 72, 
ii. 7, ii. 12—-As to the Greek article— General. 

Concerning the Greek of D and the. testimony of the Fathers in 
St. Mark’s Gospel r 

Concluding remarks — The methods of De _— Patristic 
testimony—Clement of Alexandria (x. 22 seg.)—Tertullian 
(xiv. 18)—Justin (viii. 31). 

Map of Courses of Transmission of St. Mark’s Gospel 
B in St. Luke’s Gospel. 

Editing —The longer text in B—Soleciame—Latin sympathy 
—(N.T. use of gus 221/5)—Coptic—Latin and Coptic—Syriac 
traces—Syr-Lat against Coptic—Syr-Lat and Coptic—Syr- 
Copt against Latin—Synonyms—Form—Grammatical changes 
(242-263) — Genitive before the noun—Harmonistic — 
“Neutral” “ Pre-Syrian ” ‘“ Pre-Alexandrian” misnomers— 
General improvement, etc. (272-297)—Conflict with Origen. 


PAGES 
i-vi 
vii-xili 


1-13 
14-71 


72-125 


126-139 


140-171 


172-194 


195-206 


207 
208-298 


CHAPTER 


CONTENTS. 


TX. Bin St. John’s Gospel 


X. 


Editing — Solecisms — Latin sy mpathy — Coptic — The 
corrector of B—Coptic and Latin—Syriac traces—On_ exexvos 
in St. John—Form—Synonyms—Homoioteleuton and homoio- 
arcton—Compound and simple verbs, on epxopat and Scepxopac 
(344-347)—Grammatical changes (348-363)—Order—Con- 
cerning ix. 21 and the Diatess.—Hopelessness of considering 
B neutral—Harmonistic—Conflation—General improvement 
(374-396)—Change without improvement—-Indeterminate— 
Conflict with Origen. 

Epilogue . : 

Luke xxii. 43/44, Medical language of St. Luke—As to 
yevopevos and eyevero—Xxili. 34 new evidence for and against— 
As to Cicumenius—Hesychius and Origen~—Dean Burgou’s 
position—Codex B outside the Gospels (416-419)—Patristic 
testimony—Finesse of B—“ Higher” and “ Lower ” criticism 
-——Further test of “ Neutral” text applied to sccond-century 
witnesses, Aristides, Theodotus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, 
Naasseni, Hippolytus, Marcion, efe.—Eustathius and Antioch 
—On changing symbols of codices—Singular cursive testimony 
(435-454)—Von Soden’s N.T.—The Kowy (458-460)—As to 
Merx, Ramsay and Soden—Burkitt, Merx and Vogels—The 
verdict—Hortian heresy—Other pscudo-scientific heresies, 
Robinson Smith, Dean Inge on St. Paul, efe.—Conclusion. 


Postscript (on wept and v7ep) 
General Index . 


PART IT.—VOMW. II. 


VARIATIONS BETWEEN X anv B. 
St. Matthew 
St. Mark 
St. Luke 
St. John 


Postscript (“ Gleanings ”) 


Index of Scriptural Quotations, covering vol. I. and vol, IT. : 


XV 


PAGES 


299-405 


406-187 


488 


489-497 


1-57 
58-112 
113-195 
196-341 


343-582 


383-412 


Views of Dr. Sanmon, ‘Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament,’ London, 1897. 


“Yet, great as has been my veneration for Horf and my admiration of the 
good work that he has done, I have never been able to feel that his work was 
tinal, and I bave disliked the servility with which his history of the text has 
been accepted, and even his nomenclature adopted, as if now the last word had 
been said on the subject of New Testament criticism ....” (p. 33). 

“That which gained Hort so many adherents had some adverse influence 
with myself—I mean his extreme cleverness as an advocate; for I have felt as 
if there were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for 
thinking it to be the only genuine... .” (p. 33/4). 

“On this account I am not deterred by the general adoption of W-H’s 
decisions from expressing my opinion that their work has too readily been 
accepted as final, and that students have been too willing to accept as their motto 
‘Rest and be thankful.’ There is no such enemy to progress as the belief that 
perfection has been already attained.” (p. 38). 

“In Hort’s exposition the student is not taken with him along the path 
that he himself had followed; he must start with the acceptance of the final 
result, Consequently one of the first things at which I took umbrage in W-H’s 
exposition was the question-begging nomenclature.” (p. 43). 

“T strongly feel that Hort would have done better if he had left the old 
nomenclature undisturbed, and distinguished his neutral text from that which he 
calls ‘Alexandrian’ by the names ‘early Alexandrian’ and ‘later Alexandrian.’ 
Names will not alter facts, though they may enable us to shut our eyes to them... .” 
(p. 52). 

“Naturally Hort regarded those Mss as most trustworthy which give the 
readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in 
the third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort’s method 
inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text.” (p. 53). 

“To sum up in conclusion, I have but to express my belief that what 
Westcott and Hort have restored is the text which had the highest authority in 
Alexandria in the third century, and may have reached that city in the preceding 
one. It would need but to strike out the double brackets from the so-called 
non-Western interpolations, and to remove altogether the few passages which 
W-H reluctantly admitted into their pages with marks of doubt, when we 
should have a pure Alexandrian text. Their success is due to the fact that 
W-H investigated the subject as a merely literary problem; and the careful 
preservation at Alexandria of a text which had reached that city was but a 
literary problem.” (p. 155). 

“That W-H should employ the Alexandrian ‘use’ as their chief guide to 
the recovery of the original text may be quite right; but that they should refuse 
a place on their page to anything that has not that authority is an extreme which 
makes me glad that the Revised New Testament, which so closely follows their 
authority, has not superseded the Authorized version in our Churches. For, if 
it had, the result might be that things would be accounted unfit to be read in 
the churches of the nineteenth century which were read at Rome in the second 
century, during the lifetime of men who had seen members of the apostolic 
company who had visited their city.” (pp. 157/8). 


PART LI. 


“Hort (p. 171) makes the suggestive remark that documents which have most 
Alexandrian have also most ‘neutral’ readings. It is a little surprising that he did 
not draw the obvious inference that this is because the documents which contain the 
neutral readings are Alexandrian.”’—Salmon, op. cit. p. 52, note. 

‘* However there is nothing that Hort fights more against than the idea that his 
neutral text can properly be called ‘Alexandrian,’ He eagerly catches at the notion 
that B, its principal representative, was written, not at Alexandria, but probably at 
Rome. The reasons for regarding the text of B as Alexandrian remain the same no 
matter where this particular MS chanced to be copied.”—Salmon, op. cit. p. 60. 


CHAPTER I. 
CopEx B. 


Hort’s CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 


Dr. Horr sought for a “neutral” text, uninfluenced by ‘‘ Western,” 
Alexandrian,” and “ Syrian” readings, and claimed to have found it 
in B alone. This view has been accepted in England, and nearly as 
much in Germany, although the late Adalbert Merx did his best to 
discredit B as a foundation text, and to put the matter in the right light 
to his countrymen. Great has been our loss by the death of Blass and 
Merx, and more recently still by that of Nestle. 

It seems time to call attention to the lack of basis for Hort’s 
theory, because scholars and writers still speak of a ‘neutral text” 
(by which B or readings supported by B is practically always implied), 
whereas the present writer knows of no such text. 

There is ample ground for the opposite view that B had already 
been influenced by the Syriac and the Latin version, besides the 
peculiarities visible in the B text, many of which are grammatical and 
some seemingly due to Egyptian surroundings. 

Hitherto we have not known fully the history of textual criticism 
in Greek Egypt, but every important document, including the new W, 
which has affinity for the B group, ties the matter more and more down 
to Egyptian soil, and this simplifies the problem. When W and the 
cursives of the family oppose B we must weigh these places carefully. 

Leaving aside the claims made in the Introduction of W-H, the 
principles upon which the text was founded as it left Hort’s hands are 
fixed for ever, and graven in stereotype for us; and those principles are 
reduced to one rule, viz., to follow B whenever that ms has any support, 

B 


2 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


be it only the adhesion of one other ms. This is seen (in one Gospel 
for example) in conjunctions of BL soli at Luke xi. 12, of BT sola at 
Luke xiii. 27,f of NB soli at Luke xviii. 12, xix. 48, of BA sole at 
Luke xxi. 24, of BK soli at Luke xiv. 1 (square brackets) and of B fam 
13 solt at Luke vi. 42.t 

Further, readings of B absolutely alone are dignified by textual 
notice. Matt. vi. 18 eveyxew..zrovew is read absolutely alone by B (see 
note on this elsewhere), and in Luke iii. 33 tov apswada8, omitted only 
by B, finds no place in Hort’s text; observe also Luke v. 2 wAoa dvo 
order of B alone among Greeks; v. 3 ex Tov adovov edivdackey B alone ; 
the omissions by B only of av’ Luke xii. 58, of év Luke x. 31, of pos 
avrov Luke ix. 62 are enclosed in square brackets; or they are given a 
place in the margin (as if ‘‘many ancient authorities read thus”) as 
oravpwcat Luke xxiii. 23, Oponfevres Luke xxiv. 37. Observe also the 
extraordinary es to ev tpv8dvov Mark xiv. 20 by B alone, forced into 
Hort’s text in square brackets because C* ?? possibly read thus. 

In the light of this, had B left out in John xiv. 6 cae » adnOea 
in the threefold claim ‘‘ I am the way and the truth and the life,” which 
Evan 157 does, it is practically certain that Hort’s text would have done 
so also. Had B added évrperrixn in Luke xviii. 3 as an attribute of the 
importunate widow, as does Evan 28, we should surely have found 
it in Hort’s text.§ Had B omitted ey avty tn wpa in Luke xii. 12 
with 33 and Origen we should have been favoured with this omission. 
Had B omitted tyv before awiotw in Luke xviii. 8 with D 240 244 we 
should have been asked so to read. Soden adds two fresh cursives for 
omission. 

Had B added o enoous after ta Oavpacia a eromoev in Matt. xxi. 15, 
as does Evan 28 with Origen and syr hier and i! (abcef fisgrh rs 
dim gat Wurz’ vg?®8®) we should certainly have found it in Hort’s 
text [dg 1 q vg" do not add, but ¢ does. Tisch. errs in the N.T. as to 
this witness]. Soden adds 630 and ¢ 1091 for this. Observe Origen 
and 7, alone omit ev Tw cepw in this verse. 

Had W-H known that Sod 604 supported B at Luke viii. 25 for 
the omission of xas viraxovovew avtw we should doubtless have lost the 


¢ Such mss can easily be shown to be but ome in stem. For instance B*R 
together alone at Luke v. 30 eyyoyufay for eyyoyvtov, and again vi. 23 ev ras ovpavos 
for ev tw ovpave. For some reason WH do not like this combination. R is the 
famous v"* century ms from the Nitrian desert. In the second case the BR combination 
is supported by fam 18 and ten other minuscules and by e f goth Cypr. 

$ Many are the places where NBL are followed alone, and this also represents but 
one single tradition. 

§ This is a reductio ad absurdum of the critical principles which people do not 
seem to grasp or follow. This would have resulted in perpetuating blunders of two 
mss contra mundum. Many others, probably as grievous, are to be found in the text. 
It is thereby rendered unfit for serious study as a whole, and must be banished from 
our class rooms. 


HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 3 


clause, especially as aeth favours this omission also, and W-H must have 
sought at that time in vain for another Greek witness. The same applies 
to Luke vi. 26 —o. matepes avtov B 604 (+ sah syr sin), neglected by 
W-H, yet vi. 81 —xae vues B then alone (omitted in W-H txt) has 
support of 604 and Paris. There is absolutely no science in intro- 
ducing Oponfevres into the margin of Luke xxiv. 37 on the authority 
of B alone and in neglecting to record in the margin at viii. 25 that B 
omits «at vmaxovovow avtw, especially as aeth shows it is not an 
accident. For observe that at Luke iii. 8 on the sole authority of B and 
Origen they introduce the order afsovs xaprrovs into their margin. While 
at x. 1 —avtovs B e Eus (now supported by 604 and Paris” and Sod: **) 
is not omitted by W-H. Atvii.47 +«ae ante odsy. ayara B* [negl Hort] 
is added by 892 Paris*’. 

I do not want to multiply ad nauseam instances of arbitrary 
judgement. These remarks should suffice as to definite examples of 
the unscientific use of the margin as well as of the text whether 
bracketed or not. For it is to be observed that at Luke ix. 62 W-H 
bracket mpos avrov in the text on the sole authority of B; as a matter 
of fact however 604 omits also (and sah 1/3) which they did not know. 
The whole treatment of such things is entirely unequal. I wish to 
point out that their intuition in such matters was quite wrong, because 
a little further in Luke x. 1 they leave avrovs alone and do not brand 
or bracket it although B omits. Yet here B had support from e Hust™ 
and now we find that both 604 and Paris” also omit. Had Hort known 
this he would of course have banished it. It is useless for Souter to 
get up and defend Hort on any specious plea which I may offer him 
by stating the matter thus. Souter’s own text condemns Hort’s method 
while he still clings with a curious loyalty to the man.t 

Further as to Origen, observe Luke xviii. 31 reAetwPnoeras (for Tedeo- 
@noerat), which is found in Paris’ 60 y*" 2° and some other important 
cursives, is Origen’s reading, yet not found in NB. 

Or as at Luke xxii. 4 where Orig reads ows (and Hus wa), with the 
13 family only, for ro mws of NB and all the rest [except D d arm ras; 
d follows D with guomodo against quemadmodum of the rest]. 

Or as at Matt. xv. 22 where 1 [non fam] and Origen read Sewws for 
kaxws, but not SB or any others known (although there may be other 
cursives) ; Seyws occurs at Matt. viii. 6 and Luke xi. 53. 

Or at Matt. xvi. 25 jin for evpnoe: avrnv where Orig Iren and fam 1 33 
read ovrws cwce avrTny. 

Or as at Luke xxii. 22 where Origen (recollecting eypayrev reps avrov 
of Matt Marc) adds avtw after tw wpicwevoy with sah syr hier, syr cu [non 
sin] aeth wept avrov. Had B done this we should have been told it was 





t Dr. Souter has informed me since this was written that he had nothing to do with the 
text itself of the Oxford edition of 1910 and that he favors the Hort text practically entire. 


BQ 


4 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Lucan. It is clearly an addition, as sah mss are divided among them- 
selves, four for avrw, and one for wept avtov; while syr sin by its silence 
accuses cz of harmonizing. 

Origen says we must pay attention to the letter of Scripture down to 
the very presence or absence of an article in the Greek. Yet observe 
what he does at Luke xxii. 10/Mark xiv. 13. For at Luke xxii. 10 he 
uses St. Mark’s avavtnces with D min® (against vravrncee CLX, and 
ovvavtnoes NB unc" rell), while at Mark xiv. 13 he incorporates into the 
narrative eedOovtwy vuwy evs Thy todw from Luke xxii. 10 with only 
fam 13 28 91-299 2Pe, 

Again, at Matt. xx. 13 he is to be observed very carelessly on both 
sides of the question. Once *’ with LZ 33 sah boh syr sin aeth Nyss 
writing ovyt Snvapiov cuvepwrnca cor, and again °°, again thro’ int 3.907 giyyy, 
Snvapiov cuvehovnacas wot with NB and all the rest, and laté syr rell arm 
Auct? imp et de voc gent, This place should be very carefully considered. 
Was the archetype of LZ 33 then on Origen’s desk and annotated 
by him to conform to a turn of the versions ? 

We have another illustration of Origen’s rank carelessness in St. 
Mark’s Gospel. In one place, *”” concerning Mark xi. 1, he says pre- 
cisely : “‘ kas 0 wapxos Se Kata Tov ToTOY ouTws aveyparpe* Kat oTE eyytovow 
els vepootoAupa Kat eis BnOaviay pos...” and again *7 * Swpev de reps 
rns BnOpayn pev kata pat@aov, BnOavias Se cata papKov, BnOdayn Se 
kat BnOavias Kata Tov AovKay.” 

Nothing could be plainer as to the Marcan reading of es IepocoAupa 
kat es BnPavav without evs BnOpayn, and yet when in another place 
Origen comes to write out Mark xi. 1-12 he has there evs sepocoAuua evs 
Bn Oday Kat Pnbavav, 

We note in these two places—these two codices as it were—ot Origen 
that they vary in the spelling of evOus and evfews (xi. 3) and doubtless 
he was using different copies, without realizing it, when he penned the 
two passages. For instance in the one place (ver. 2) he leaves out ov7w, 
in the other it is present; again ver. 3 he leaves out in one place wadw, in 
the other it is present. 

Again ver.3 one place tz vrovevre rovro; in the other tz AveTe Tov TwAov 
with D. 

Ver. 4 one place xa amndOov in the other xa azreAOovtes 

” ” ‘ Gupay ” ” THY Oupav 
1 Tov rwAdov diserte ,, two others 7waAov. 

Further than that Origen does a thing at Matt xviii. 27 which throws 
a lurid light on the proceedings of the entire coterie, whose joint 
testimony we are asked to accept and whose mutual support is considered 
to bolster up the individual witness of a very small clan. This place 
both dates several witnesses and affords much help. 

I refer to this substitution: For xa: to Savetov adnxev avtw, Origen 
with 1 only and ff; sah boh (ex xviii. 32) says wacay Thy opetrAny. 


HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 5 


Origen’s quotation, as given in Tischendorf, is 0 Se omAayyvicbers eT avTw 
KUpLOS OVK ... abNKEY aUTOV povoy adAa... Tacav THY opetdny avtw. While 
this does not convict Origen absolutely of appropriating the wording of 
verse 32, and inserting it in verse 27, it comes so near to it that 1 and 
sah boh must have thought it a good idea to make the transfer. In other 
words they were following Origen, as Vulgate mss followed Jerome’s 
other writings. (Soden adds his family ¢*.) 

The principal point is this (for SB do not agree to make the 
substitution): For many verses previously the testimony of Evan 1 
(without 118-209) has been bolstering up B. I use this expression 
advisedly, for on the testimony in Matt xviii. 25 of B 156 58 124 Orig 1/2 
Hort has inserted in his text eyes WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST MARGINAL 
ALTERNATIVE. Evan 1 is contradicted by 118-209, 124 is contradicted by 
the rest of its family; 56 and 58 are of no account whatever [Dobbin is 
silent as to 61], for they are most notorious polyglot abusers of the truth, 
and Origen contradicts himself. They have been used here simply to 
bolster up B in his use of the historic present [see elsewhere under this 
head ]. 

Again, upon the testimony of B 1 124 (again against their families) 
and sah 4/7 we are asked in Matt xviii. 27 to suppress exewov [by Hort in 
square brackets]. 

Now such mss do not really support B as a neutral text at all, for 
we find that 1 and sah and Origen are all in the same circle playing 
tricks on us; as at xvili. 27 in this very same verse where they ask us to 
read Tacav thy opecrnv for To daveiov. 

This dates the vagaries and other like ones observable in 1 Orig 
and copt, and makes us demur to use them as supporters of B as a 
neutral text. On the contrary B is supporting them for an Egyptian 
and private post-Origenian recension. I will illustrate further :— 

Matt. xvii. 8. Hort prints avrov Ijcovy povov. This is read by B and 
by B only. & supports with Incovy avrey povov, both readings 
being obtained via the Coptic by & and B. Hort did not 
know this, for the Coptic or Syriac has never been alleged 
in the critical apparatus as containing this avrov, nor does 
Horner connect the readings of NB with Coptic in his sah 
apparatus. Butitseems perfectly clear to me where NB got the 
avrov. Hort’s margin has tov in place of avrov. [Sod = B.] 

14, edovrav (—avrwv) NBZ 1 124 245 sah is the only support. 
Hort’s text gives no alternative, and we are to swallow the 
reading of this vicious little circle (whose joint eclecticism is 
now in process of demonstration) against Origen because it 
is a “shorter” text. Hort counts seven witnesses I suppose, 
but it is merely one. 

xviii. 1. Hort’s margin is dignified by the addition of Se here, to read 
ev exetvn SE TN wpa With BM e sah** boh°™., These are the 


6 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


only witnesses (+a syr cu). Boh™ ¢ is very suggestive, 
against the shorter text for Gr™ Lap™ Syr*4 Orig. 

xvii. 11. Another similar little coterie (observe the members are never 
homogeneous) ask us to omit this verse altogether. It is 
composed of NBL* 1 (against family) 13 (against family) 33 
892* e fi sah boh®" syr sin hier and Orig, and Hort promptly 
accepts their verdict with much gusto, referring in his margin 
to the Appendix, where three half-column lines are devoted to 
explain that it is ‘“‘ Interpolated either from Luke xix. 10 (a 
different context) or from an independent source written or 
oral.” Where were NL above if right here? Why was Orig 
on the other side above? I mean merely that the whole 
editorial process is intuitive and has no scientific foundation 
whatever. 

16. Hort’s margin receives the order wapadaPe ers eva 7 dv0 peta 
cov of B ff, and boh (these only). Where is the science? 
B is evidently the controlling factor. But B got this from 
looking att an Egyptian copy of the Scriptures with this 
order (cf. also sah). 

To go back a little xvi. 21 iC XC stands in Hort’s text without the 
alternative 0 1G. I beg to say that only &*B* read thus (both corrected) 
and that their only support is sah?/? boom Practer duo. Whereas N* 892 
Orig and Iren omit altogether. 

If right here then in the name of all that is consistent why does 
Hort reject the +7ore in xiv. 3 of B and fam 13 with sah most decidedly : 
“ev tovTw Tw Kkaipw”? Hiven & suggests it with ‘‘cum detinuisset” 
against “Herodes enim tenuit” but Hort prints xparnoas.$ For at 
viii, 18 Hort does not scruple to accept B and sah alone for his text 
of oyAov against oxdovs etc. And at ii. 21 he reads esondAOev (for 
mOev) SBC alone, merely confirmed by sah boh aqBwK eg pat, Aci 
eDoren. 

Now these conjunctions NB and NBC and NBD have been given 
too much weight when insufficiently supported otherwise. 

Observe xii. 17 wa (pro omws) NBCD 1 33 Orig Hus boh. If I 
oppose this I shall be told that I am a madman, and that this evidence is 
absolutely conclusive. I deny it. And I point to vii. 34 where wa 
(pro ows) is read by B alone and boh. [Soden adds nothing. ] 

Hort does not follow B here in viii. 34, but why not? If we is 
neutral in xii. 17, why not in viii. 34? Bohairic uses it in both places. 
Did Hort have a glimmer that B after all was copied from a Graeco- 
Coptic ms and that pa caught B’s eye instead of orws? If so, where 
is the neutral text ? 

The same remark applies to ews and ews of. In Matt. xviii. 30 


{ As N in Matt. xiv. 1 etc. rerpaapyns more copt. }{ Soden’s text accepts +rore with ™, 


HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 7 


NBCL write ews azodw for ews ob amodw of the rest; but in xviil. 34, 
only four verses beyond, B alone writes ews aod. (See full list in 
Luke.) Possibly ov is dropped for fear of confusion with ov. 

After a thorough re-examination of the subject I re-affirm my 
belief that however good a base the ms B may have in places, it is 
absolutely to be disregarded as representing any such thing as a 
“neutral” text; that in many places it is as far removed from 
“neutrality” as night from day; that “neutrality”? can alone be sought 
among the documents which are in agreement with the witnesses of 
pre-Origenian date. 

To rank B ‘neutral’? as a whole is to discredit testimony of 
Clement of Alexandria when supported by a host of witnesses; to 
discredit Tertullian and EHpiphanius jointly when they reproduce 
faithfully the text of Marcion [as regards language, not as regards 
brevity], equally supported by a large array of authorities; to discredit 
much of the “‘ western” text even when it is undoubtedly the “ shortest,” 
in the face of two differing lines of addition, with or without conflation 
of these two lines; to discredit Origen himself when he opposes B 
but has good support otherwise; to discredit the old Syriac when 
opposing B in favour of & or of D; and finally to shut the door on 
a possible neutral text reproduced in no Gk. uss extant but witnessed 
to strongly by pre-Origenian Fathers, backed by Latin, Syriac, or 
Coptic mss. (Cf Adalbert Merx, 11. Theil, 1. Halfte p. 20, etc.) 

T re-affrm my belief that a polyglot text influenced & throughout.t 
And I charge B with being the child of a Graeco-Latin recension, and by 
its scribe or by its parent of being tremendously influenced by a Coptic 


recension or by a Graeco-sahidic snd a Graeco-bohairic Ms.{ 


I cannot allow that NB influenced the sahidic or bohairic versions 
(except perhaps a few separate mss of each or either of them); for the 
sympathy visible between N or B or both and the Coptic versions 
is a sympathetic bond which antedates the mss & and B, and which 
contributes to place these versions (where they oppose NB) on an 
independent footing implying a Greek text of older date than that of NB, 
and when supported by other good witnesses to be followed. 

And I charge Westcott and Hort with having utterly failed to 
produce any semblance of a “neutral” text. I charge them with the 
offence of repeated additions to the narrative on most insufficient 
evidence. 

I charge the Oxford edition of 1910 with continual errors in accepting 
Westcott and Hort’s text for many verses together where the absence 








f In the list of differences between § and B in Part II will be found plenty of 
material to support this proposition. 
} Proof to this effect may be seea throughout the following pages. 


8 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


of footnotes shows that the editors consider their text as settled. I 
acknowledge and make confession freely that the Revisers have retraced 
steps in a number of places and ejected Hort’s readings sometimes even 
without the pro and con in a footnote, where Hort blindly followed a 
phantasma of evidence. But this text is still founded on too high a 
regard for B, and I pray for an entire reconsideration of the matter in the 
light of what follows. 

One word here as to the ‘“‘ Western”’ text may not be out of place, 
Upon many occasions this ‘‘ Western” text is the one which furnishes 
the shortest text (against B). We have been taught that the “‘ Western ” 
text is the one which has the most additions and accretions. This 
feature is quite distinct from the other, and whether the additions be all 
glosses or not, the other feature of omission has to be separately 
considered as to its bearing on the basic or fundamental text for purity 
or shortness, for the text of D is, as we know from Clement of Alex., ore 
which was in Egypt very early, at a date before the “African” Latin 
was known, is confirmed often by W, and has come down to us less 
influenced by side influences than the other recensions. 

Take one instance. At Luke xix. 2 there are great varieties of 
reading, where D d ¢ and sah preserve the shortest text, giving us (as to 
Zaccheus) simply doves for cas mAouvacos of 1 s, nae nv mAovotos of NL 
245 892 goth syr hier (and W-H marg), xat mrovaws nv boh syr cu sin, Kat 
autos TAovaotos BKII big vg (W-H tat), cas avtos nv rrovawos U al. latt, nas 
ovtos nv mAovaotos A unc” al. f, ovros nv mrovovos W 108 157, wrAovetos ny 
ante Kat apyttehwvns syr pesh, wrovatos (tantum) ante nat apyvred@vns 
diatess arab, (V and Evst 47 omit altogether). W-H adopt B’s reading 
in text and &’s in marg, and neglect D d e sah (diatess) altogether. Then 
why at Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40, 51, 52 double-bracket the ‘“‘ Western non- 
interpolations’? Where is the science involved of the “ shorter” text ? 
Dr. Salmon (‘Some Thoughts,’ eéc. p. 98) says “I am persuaded that 
critics will be forced to acknowledge that the Gospel as read in the 
1" century in the Church of Rome differed in a few particulars from that 
read at the same date at Alexandria. Critics may discuss which of these 
texts is authoritative, or whether both may be so; but I am sure that an 
arbitrarily created hybrid between the two is wrong; and this is the kind 
of text more than once exhibited by W-H in the closing verses of 
St. Luke.” 

The claim of W-H to have resurrected the texts of Origen certainly 
holds good except in certain places. But in doing so they far exceed 
Origen’s own claim. Origen’s citations are full of conflations, where he 
knew two recensions and incorporated both. If he was not able to judge 
which of these was original, why should he be a perfect judge of other 
double readings similarly situated but of which he chose one? Now 
W-H profess that they have not only restored the text of Origen but that 
they know that this is “‘ pre-Syrian” and “ pre-Alexandrian” and, as 


HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 9 


represented by B, is “‘ neutral” and fundamentally correct as opposed to 
all others.f Their “selected readings,’ few and far between, can 
certainly not be considered proof of their contention, and we are prepared 
to challenge their assumption as to the supremacy of B. Meanwhile we 
would like to place on record again what Canon Cook had to say about 
the personality of Origen in connection with these matters, for that 
feature is of vital importance. The Church at large disagreed with 
Origen’s conclusions. W-H after nearly 1700 years merely wish to replace 
us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after a.p. 450 or 
thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse. For Dr. Salmon says (‘Some 
Thoughts,’ etc. pp. 106/7) : “ Giving to the common parent of B and & as 
high antiquity as is claimed for it, still it will be distant by more than 
a century from the original autographs, and the attempts to recover 
the text of mss which came to Alexandria in the second century may 
be but an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been 
stolen.” 

Again the same authority (pp. 128/9): “‘When W-H refuse to 
give a local name to the readings they prefer, and designate them 
as neutral, that is to say, as free from corruptions of various kinds, 
they are disguising from themselves and from their readers that the 
question what text has the most early attestation cannot be decisively 
answered.” 

And again (pp. 181/182): “Thus the task of discrimination may be 
difficult; but we must not conceive that we have solved a problem because 
for our convenience we have simplified it. The problem has not been 
completely solved until we have taken account of the evidence which has 
been temporarily neglected.” 

And again (p. 157): ‘I hold, on the contrary, that in critical science 
the rule nullwm tempus prevails; that it is never too late to reverse a 
wrong decision.” 

And now to hear what Canon Cook has to say about Origen :— 

“We go back one step further, a most critical and important step, for 
it brings us at once into contact with the greatest name, the highest 
genius, the most influential person of all Christian antiquity. We come 
to Origen. And it is not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains 
upon every department of Biblical criticism and exegesis. His 
‘Hexapla’ is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discern- 
ment: but his labours on the Old Testament were thwarted by his 
very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency to mystic 
interpretations common in his own age, but in no other writer so fully 
developed or pushed to the same extremes. 

‘In his criticism of the New Testament Origen had greater 





+ However Origen and B are not infrequently in conflict. Observe Hort on those 
occasions. See beyond at the end of my notes on each Gospel. 


10 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available 
source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and versions were 
before him; both manuscripts and versions he examined, and brought out 
the results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no one who 
considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless 
curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be 
disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any 
reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the 
independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions. 
The points in which we are specially entitled to look for innovations 
are: (1) curious and ingenious readings, such, for instance, as those 
which we have noticed in St. Mark and St. Luke; (2) the removal 
of words, clauses, or entire sentences which a man of fastidious taste 
might regard as superfluities or repetitions ” [see my remarks on “ pairs ” 
and Origenistic “ niceties’”’]; ‘‘(3) a fearless and highly speculative mode 
of dealing with portions of the New Testament which might contain 
statements opposed to his prepossessions or present difficulties which 
even his ingenuity might be unable to solve. In weighing the evidence 
of his citations for or against any doubtful reading, while we should feel 
assured of his perfect honesty of purpose, we ought to be extremely 
cautious in adopting his conclusions. A text formed more or less 
directly under his influence would of course command a certain amount 
of general adhesion; it would approve itself most especially to minds 
similarly gifted and similarly developed; when brought to bear upon 
the course of critical enquiry it would produce an enormous effect, 
especially if it came with the charm and interest of novelty; but not 
less certainly would it be challenged, and its verdict be refused, if it 
contravened principles of fundamental importance and affected the 
veracity of the sacred writers and the teaching of Holy Writ.” (Canon 
Cook, ‘ Revised Version of the first three Gospels,’ pp. 155/6.) 

Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject (‘ Lect.’ xi. ed. 1838, 
p. 482): ‘“ Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a 
sense which in Origen’s opinion was irrational or impossible, in other 
words irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen 
had learnt (sic) at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense.” 

This sums up many other matters connected with Origen’s treat- 
ment of textual matters (to which the following pages bear witness), so 
that we do not necessarily recover Origen’s manuscripts when we are 
inclined to follow NB Orig, but very likely only Origen himself. (The 
MS 83 seems to represent a copy annotated by Origen himself with 
suggested “improvements.” They are sometimes together quite alone. 
The same applies to the ms 127, and observe that 127 is related toa graeco- 
latin: Matt. xxii. 9 mpos (pro ets) 127 sol = latt AD exitus viarum.) 

To begin at the very beginning, when Hort says: 

“ But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any 


ALEXANDRIAN READINGS OF B. 11 


readings of B in any book of the New Testament which tt 

contains ’’ (vol. ii. p. 150) 
had he never noticed the frequent preference given by B (and &) to 
eavtov and eavtwy over avtovand avrwv? In order to keep small detail 
out of my apparatus I began stupidly enough by not chronicling these 
things in N and B, but some examples will be found. Now turn to 
Clement of Alexandria and see his preference for the same course: (on 
Matt. xx, 28, Mark x. 45) «as Sovvas tyv yroyny Thy eauTou. 

Then turn to Athanasius : 

1 Pet. iv. 19 (where B alone omits avrwy after yuyas) Ath says tas 
eavtwy wvyas in the coptic manner. 

Observe further :° 

(1) Jo.x.81. “ eRactacay sine copula cum NBL 33” says Tischendorf. 
Follow the apparatus a little further and you find ATHANASIUS, 
Surely then this is an Alexandrian reading. Observe further 
that after two words more ATHANASIUS drops ov sovdato with 
the new Egyptian ms W, and the Alexandrian picture is 
complete there. 

() Jo. xvii. 15 referred to by Burgon as to an omission by B and 
Ath is questionable. 

(2) Matt. xii. 81. apeOnoeras vary tos avOpwros B 1 sah and 
ATHANASIUS only. — 

(8) Matt. xxvi. 45. dou-+yap BE and sah ATH", 

(4) Luke xi. 19. autos voy xpitas ecovtas BD 604 Paris only of 
Greeks, a,¢ dt of Latins, with ATHANASIUS, choosing this 
order out of five or six differing orders by the other 
authorities. 

(5) tJ0.i. 18. ~ovde ex Oednuatos avdpos B* 17* Hus Clem“ and 
Aryans vid Pgs, xxi, 

(6) Jo. v. 87. exewvos (pro autos) NBULW a (goth) and ATHANASIUS 
(D d exewvos avros), Om avros 892 = syr cu pers georg. 

This exetvos is so thoroughly Johannine in such a connection that 
it is difficult to judge whether it may be basic or only an 
endeavour by NBLW Ath to improve the passage to a 
conformity with Johannine diction. But the action of D is 
suspicious. See as to exewvos beyond under ‘‘ Syriac” heading 
in St. John’s Gospel at iv. 11. 

(7) Jo. vi. 42. was vuv (pro ras ow) BCTW doh?! goth syr hier 
only and ArHanasius™4 (teste Tisch). Add Sod. 

(8) Jo. x. 82 fin. Order >ewe AHalere of NBLY 33 157 Paris®’ Sod’? 
only of Greeks, but of 2t! vg, is the order of ATH. against 
DW and the rest and c d f 1 & sah boh syr goth Epiph Hil 





+ And this matter hag some bearing upon our contention as to “pairs” of 
expressions, 


HORT’S SYSTEM. EGYPT FREE FROM ANTIOCH BY REVISION. 138 


Paris” is not extant for control in St. Matthew in Schmidtke’s 
edition, and V only begins at Mark ix. 6, but 892 is valuable in Matthew. 

I do not overlook the fact that the side opposed to NB sometimes 
also tried its hand at improvement. See Matt. xv. 6 rnv evtodnv 
(ea Marco vii. 8) for tov Aoyov of BD and versions, but even here & is not 
agreed with B and writes tov vouoy with CT* fam 13 and Ptol. The 
support of Ptol puts tov voyoy into the second century, and is not far 
removed from tnv evtodny. 

Burkitt says : 

“The Antiochian Greek text seems never to have influenced 
Kgypt—at least not before the x century. Freedom from 
specifically ‘Antiochian’ readings is a characteristic of all 
forms of the Egyptian N.T.”—Burkitt in ‘ Texts and Versions,’ 
Encye. Bibl. 1903. 

But precisely because long ago Egypt had revised this Antiochian 
text. 
This revising process will now engage our attention for many 


pages. 


12 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Thdt. When NBL oppose sah boh and have Athanasius 
with them we may surely take it into account. 

(9) Jo. xii. 28. Sofacov pov to ovoya (pro S0&. cov to ovoya) BY 
cum Evan 5. But sol X and Arwanasius Sofagov cov tov 
utoy (Cyr refers to both). 

(10) Jo. xv. 21. adda tavta rravra romoovew e615 vuas BD*LN?* 1 33 
Paris” Petr, all others vzas or yuu. 

(11) Jo. xix. 31. 1 nuepa exetvyn tov caBBarov (pron nuepa exetvou 
tov caBRarov B*H min pauc Elz pers ¢ f g vgg and Cyrille, 
all others exezvov. 

(12) 1 Peter i. 11. Of the prophets of old: epevvwvtes evs Tia n Trotov 
Katpov edndouTo ev avTos Tvevpa (~Xpiotov) mpopaptupomevov 
7a es Xpiotov waOnuata.... B 

Von Soden now adds the testimony of ATHANASIUS to that of B for 
omission of Xpuorov. In the Benedictine edition of 1698 of Ath. the 
word is not omitted, but if Ath, presumably examined by Soden, really 
omit, we are thoroughly justified in connecting this strange omission with 
Alexandria. 

But in another place Hort writes as follows: 

“The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be 
laid to the credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria ; its 
best representatives among the versions are the Egyptian, 
and especially that of Lower Egypt; and the quotations 
which follow it are most abundant in Clement, Origen 
(Dionysius, Peter), Didymus and the younger Cyril, aLu 
ALEXANDRIANS.” Hort, vol. i. p. 549. 

As to whether the Alexandrian School preserved the true text, or 
modified it by attempted improvement, is what we are to inquire into. 

Hort’s system involves dragging in readings of B whenever support 
can be found from another ms. Since Hort’s day his true system thus 
demands and compels the acceptance of further ‘‘ monstra” exhibited by 
B owing to support forthcoming since from other mss or versions (such 
as 604 892 Paris” syr sin). I make free to prophecy that other 
documents so far unknown will add to this list a further crop of 
vicious survivals which might give us eventually all of B’s misreadings. 
The system is thus demonstrated to be unscientific in the extreme, 
notwithstanding the praise so fulsomely lavished on it by a certain 
school. 

I propose to sketch the matter in St. Matthew. In St. Luke I 
will go into the matter a little more thoroughly in some respects. 
And in St. Mark I will add a section on the differing recensions visible 
in that Gospel. The treatise might run to undue length if all four 
Gospels were handled quite exhaustively. In St. John I have been 
obliged to go into great detail owing to the character of the Gospel and 
its pleonastic expressions leading to textual difficulties. 








CHAPTER II. 
B in St. MattHew’s GOSPEL. 
Example of editing by B. 


Matt. v. 87. ‘‘ Let your word be yea yea, nay nay.”” For ecto B alone 
with = min‘ Eus substitutes ecras. Hort actually dignifies this 
with a place in his margin. Now if B be right, & and every 
other ms and Father are wrong and the copies in their hands 
most curiously mutilated. 

For Justin Martyr, Clement and Clem>™ several times, Tertullian, 
Cyprian and Iren. all witness to éo7w, while John Damascene confirms it 
absolutely, for quoting the same saying from St. James v. 12, where 
the rare form 7tw obtairs (and is constant in all mss), he quotes it 
as éoTw. 

(Clem"** as a matter of fact seems to be on both sides and both in 
Strom. This is not indicated by Tisch.) 


Examples of Solecisms or practical Solecisms of B. 


v. 11. evera B* 
vi. 18. > vnorevewy tos avOpwrots B (&) only 
21. —Kae B and one boh codex 
33. > thy Stxatocurny Kat THv Baciderav avtov = B* 
ibid. xpnre (pro xpngere) BF 


xii. 20. No one seems to have emphasised Azvov by B (for Auwov, flax). 
I do not think this is an itacism because & and vg® check us. 
Aves OL Aavos Means wool (“smoking wool”), but also in a 
sense wood (wooden winepress, trough, coffin, etc.), hence 
probably the lignum of k, which the very old Vulgate text of 
vg® confirms. B and & draw together elsewhere, but I have 
not seen notice taken of it here. Lignum is not necessarily 
therefore an error for Linum. Indeed in an ancient 
Graeco-latin B may have seen lignum, since k has pre- 
served it. 

Sah boh imply a wick of flax, but aeth suggests the woody 
fibre of flax. 
82. ove abeOnoera (pro apeOnaerar primo loco) B* 


B IN 8ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 15 


Matt. 
ibid. ov un adeOn (pro ovx apeOnoetat sec loco) B 


38. ~—Kav papicaiov B min? against all others 
48 fin. — pov (post o1 aderpor) B@ vid cum Ev Ebion®rirh 
Rill. 4. xas eAOovTa ta merewa xatepayey B fam 13 only vid (and 
not from a parallel) but cf. von Soden 
5. Tas yns (pro yns) B*! (De novo B®! rns yns Marc iv. 5) 
6. exavpatwbn  B (rell et N exavpaticbn et D cxavpaticOnocar) 
7. —xat Sexacoe Bt 
4, eAadnoev (pro TapeOnxev) B* vid et k | Negl. Soden] 
xiv. 2, —6va Tovto Be {Habet Marc vi. 14] 
5. eres (pro ott) B**" cum 604; emetdn ZN (sah expresses this 
curiously) Cf. xxi. 46 which B was considering. 


19. xerevoare (pro KeXevoas) B* Sod'## 
36. aapexadovy (—avTov) B 892 Orig 1/2 Chr 
xv. 11. epyopuevor (pro evcepxopevor) Be! 
15. avtw eve (pro evmrev avTw) B" pers 
17. evrepyouevoy (pro ecatropevopevorv) B Orig 1/2. Add Sod™° 
82. —7dn B 106 301 7 vg" (cf syr copt aeth) 
xvi. 4. acres (pro Snre) Be" (cum pers arabe; cf. syr 
ancipitem curam linguae) 
14. a: 8 (pro adnrou Se) B@ et Hus (Chr) 
17. —ore B!, Add Sod™ teste Sod, sed contraed. 


21. Secevuvac (pro Secxvvev) B®! cum Origs™* 
22. Neyes auTw emitipoy B" (pro npEato emitipav avtw deyor) 
and W-H marg 
xvii. 25. azo Tivos ( p70 aro Tw?) B 288 sol. Cyr 2/4. Add Soda 
KVili. 9. cxavdaree (pro cKavdarrter) B*', Correctors have not 
changed. It is accented cxavdanrel?. 
28. —exewwos B 245 pers sol (arm? contra codd) 
30. > avrov ot cuvdovAot B™ et copt 
xix. 22. ypnuata (pro xrnuata) B*" (Chr) Is this “simple” and 
‘‘inartificial”’? Hort says “no,” for he rejects it from his text and margin. 

Cf Liddell and Scott sub ypjya: ‘The interchange of ypjya and 
«tha is frequent, yet the same distinction holds as between ypdoyac and 
«Tdopat, So that xrjua is strictly a possession, ypjua what one wants 
or uses.” 

In other words ‘‘money” to B or the scribe of B was more 
familiar (ypjuar’ dvyjp “money makes the man,” Pindar) than landed 
possessions. B*"™* was a city man, a town man, as is seen all through 
his attitude. 

St. Mark differentiates between xTnuata and ypynyata in x. 22/23 of 
the parallel.t 





{~ See further remarks as to this in section on Patristic quotations and Clement 
of Alexandria. 


16 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


St. Luke (= Mark x. 23) uses ypyuarta, having in the previous verse 
said merely yv yap mAovews ofodpa. In Mark x. 22 it is D which sub- 
stitutes ypnuata for xrnwata. 

In this connection consider next (out of the regular order) : 


Matt. 


XXV. 27. Ta apyupia pou (for to apyupiov pov) N*BW 604 only; “my 


monies” for ‘‘my money” although referring only to the 
one talent as Tisch points out. All the other Greeks, 
sympathising cursives, Latins, boh and sah have the 
singular. One solitary sah ms No. 8, by the change of 
mt to x, gives the plural with NB. I think these two places 
looked at together are very instructive.t 


. «us Oavarov vel Bavaro B aeth 
. KaTAKUPLEVoOUGL. B 124 al. perpauc (contra rell et verss) 
. VAL UpwV TpwTOS B alone among many variations, 


apparently the nearest to copt. 


. oy pers (for pyxeri) BLM only, being a strengthened 


negative but against all the rest and Orig Meth and even 
Peter of Alexandria. 


. After varying the order of vv. 29/30 B with only a very few 


cursives and sah boh etc., remains alone at verse 31 with 
6 varepos, for Evan 4 has o Sevrepos, and D with the other 
few o ecyaros. Hort places o vorepos in his text. 


xxii. 39. opowws (pro opota) B* vid ) The one change hangs on 


tbid. 
27. 
37. 


RX. 


Xxiv. 


XXvV. 


XXVI. 


—auTn B™ vid the other. 
opoatete (pro mwapopoatere) B1 [non fam] 
—eauTns B 604 sols (bere Clem 1/8 Orig 2/6 Hus 4/5) 
. e« (proato) B 4 Soden 3544 (syr) Of Mare xiii. 1 
. WUeTEVETE B 262 Orig 44 (¢f Mare xiii. 21) 
. yapucxovtes Bet Sod” 
. eyeveto (pro yeyover) B (ef xxiv. 21 eyevero BD 604) 
. murros ns (pro ns miatos) Bhr (Iren™) syr 
. —Twv adeAdav jou Ba fh. 2 vg? arm ? Clem 4/5 lib Ath 
. —oux pr. (ante edwxare) B* et vg™ soli 
+xa (ante ediupqoa) BL aeth syr pesh diatess (contra 
rell omn et copt) 
. KGL aTrOKTELVOUaLY B mint r, vg" [non al.] 
. —Aeyov B gi soli vid 
. geT avTov (pro peta inoov) Bd cum Hil 
. Suvouas 
. orxodopnoar (— avtov) B 1-209 [non 118] 69 [non fam] 


Orig 2/4. Sod. (Origen gives three readings here.) 





+ Cf Hawkins’ ‘Hore Syn.’ p.4. Plural never used in the LXX, where the singular 
ocours over 850 times. Soden adds © for the plural. 
$ Male Horner opoca. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 17 


xxvil. 6. kopBav B* (fg. qr. aur gat vg®, corbam ad hr) aeth 
18. o¢a (pro roca) B@ (D roca) 
17. tov BapaSBav B 1 Sod" Orig soli vid [non copt] 
(21. tov BapaBBav NBL 1 33 122 892 (sah boh xe Rappakac 
ef syr) If improvised in ver 17, probably also here) 
24. xaTevayte (pro amevavi) BD soli vid et W-H [non al. Sod] 
29. mepteOneay B 131? for eOnxav of KNWATI syr boh latt longe 
plur and ereOnxav & unc?! min? dh vg? Eus (sah) 
This is a clear improvisation by B, and would equate such a thing 
as qepienevyov of 157 at Luke xvi. 21, except that it comes from 
Mark xv. 17 “‘ «as mepitiOeacw avtw mrckavtes axavé. ated.” 
33. eis Tov Torov tov B' (pro ets rorrov) cf. sah boh et Luc xxiii. 33. 
See under ‘‘ Harmonies.” 
43. emt tw Oew (pro ems Tov Oeov) B 218 soli latt Hus 1/2 Juvenc. 
W-H™: 
This seems to be a delicate choice of the dative after mezovBev. 
The acc. or dative can accompany 7resOw according to its various shades 
of meaning. Here apparently “ He was fully persuaded of and conformed 
to God.” 


B and Latin Sympathy. 


It is quite impossible to divorce B from Latin affiliations. In the 
detail of this matter will be found much food for reflection in this Gospel 
and in the others. 

These lists are compiled to assist in differentiating between a possible 
common base of the Greek and Latin witnesses and a real appropriation 
by B of Latinisms or Latin readings. The full force of the matter is felt 
when we see where W goes with B and where it does not. 

Matt. 


i. 22. xvpiou(—Tov) NBCDW2ZA (observe both D and A are present) 
25. ews erexev (pro ews ov etexev) B"[W-H] (of Luc xii. 59) 


ii. 13. epavn (pro pawerat) B 872 and laté 

vi. 10. az ere yns (— TNs) NBWZA Clem Orig 
18. > vnotever rows avOpmrois B (&) solt 

ix. 28. > rovto duvvayat tromoas Blq vg 


x. 4. kavavatos (pro xavavirns) BCD (yav.) L min pauc copt it vg et 8 
16. evs To pecov (pro ev Tw pew) AvKav B! cum ff, k vg? Lucif. 


23. lopanr (— Tov) BD [W-H] latt (ef Marc xv. 32) 
xi. 1, 12. caBBarous (pro caBBacw) B*! et vett sabbatis 
xii, 4. 3 (pro ods) BDW 18 22124 b dk q aur vg" syr 


xili. 5. e€averechav (pro cEaverernev) B! Cf lattexortasunt. See 
“Change of Number.” 
8. execev ecg = B* (pro emecev ert) sed B ipse vid em substitutt 
39. atwvos (—Tov) NBD fam 18 88 Orig 1/2 latt (contra sah et boh 
diserte rovtou Tov atwvos) 
Cc 


18 
Matt. 


xiii. 


[ xiii. 


xiv. 


XV. 


Xvi. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


40. The above is followed suspiciously closely by xaraxarerau 


46 


NB (D —ovra ) 1 [non 118-209] Cyr and lati “ comburuntur,” 
“exuruntur” (contra rell Gr). The Coptic word, one chosen 
out of many, cepoKg,o (hence ‘“‘sirocco”) may also 
intimate caraxacerae rather than caerar, W with the rest 
KQLETAL, 

. A very curious case occurs here, where NB and all agree in 
menpaxev against the aorist of D alone erwAncer | 


9. AvmnOecs (pro edkurnOn) BD 1 fam 13 604. Some Latins 


29. 


31. 


37. 


contristatus without est (against the other Greeks and the 
important witnesses c f k g* copt arm syr). This AwvrnOes 
looks strangely like the Latin contristatus (—est), for the 
copula Se wanting in BD is found in the Latins ¢ f k q* (copt 
syr), which have contristatus est, showing that est did not slip 
in there by mistake. 
. twavyny (—Tov) only BN*Z@ 1 as lat. Otherwise sah boh 
“he took off the head of John.” 
ametTpos (—6) NBD [non minn] W-H 
. avaBavtwv (pro euSavtwv) NBDT° 892 (Jatt: ascendentibus) 
xoovs axovovtas (pro kwh. NadovvTas) B® 59 115 238 and 
e “ surdos audientes”’ (while d using surdos yet has loquentes, 
as also &). All the rest and lati have AaAourtas. I class this 
here because of the acceptance by d ek of surdos for mutos. 
xogos is used in N.T. both for dumb and deaf (vide our Eng. 
transl.). Boh turns the difficulty by beginning mutos 
loquentes, continuing et clodus ambulantes et caecos videntes, 
and closing with the addition of surdos audientes, while a 
cuts out nearly the whole verse. 
> To wepigcevoy Twy Kr. npav. Latin order, supported only by 
BD 1 33 892 against the Greeks and other versions. 
. ofOn (pro apOncav) [pwvons kat nrevas following] corres- 
ponds to latt mult “ paruit.” 
The polyglot character of NB is shown in this same verse 
where they change the order per avrov ovAAadovyTes (cum e0 
loquentes) to cuvAan. pet avtou with W 1 ffi2 g sah boh aeth 
and syrr Cyr. So again xvii. 7 mpoondOev o imoovs Kat 
avvapevos NBD fam 13 604 it?! vg syrr against mpoceAOwr ... 
nyato of the rest. 


. svotpedopevav Se avtav (pro avactped. Se avrwv) NB 1 892. 


Cf la! conversantibus; etre....ce ffi; et Orig (“ neutral ”’) 
otpedopevoy Se avrwv. 


. papicaios (—o.) BCLMWATIE al. pauc boh Dam. 

. ox (pro exw) BD Sod™ latt Orig 1/2 (contra NL kAnpovopno) 
. eyes (pro epyn) B Sod” fam 18 only of Greeks with all Latins. 
. —oTt 3B plur and latt (but against NCLMZ copt syr) 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 19 
Matt. 


xx. 20. am avtou (pro wap avtov) BD 604 W-H. Cf latt sah 
33. > ov ofOarpote nuov NBDLZ 33 892 Sod’ *""'4 Jatt 
xxi. 28. > dvo rexva Bi 142 299 Sod™* lattom 

xxii. 4. nrowwaxa NBC*DL 1 22 33 604 892* ; against nrowuaca of the 
rest, strengthened by Orig Cyr Chr Dam. Hort uses yroipaxa 

here without a sign in the margin. This is not Origen. 
5. ere Tnv ewropiay (pro es ryv eum.) NBCDT*3®@ fam 13 33 

125* 157 [non 28] 604 Orig and Lar. 

30. —Tov Geov BD fami1[non fam 13] 604abcdef fahqr 
vg™=@ syr cu sin sah arm Orig*® W-H, but cf Marc xii. 25 
Note that W has tov @cov with the rest and does not go 


with D here. 
xxiv. 8. —rys (ante cuvtederas) NBCLM Sod™ fam 1 33 157 892 Cyrtier 
88. +exewvaus BD Sod™® laté and sah 


xxv. 16. exepdycev (pro erouncev), and —tadravra fin by BCDL, and 
BL respectively, shows very strong Latin affiliation, both 
being against % and the mass. 

29. rou Se pn exovtos (pro amo Se Tov wn exovtos) NBD 1-209 
{non 118] 33 124 [non fam] = Lat. 

41. xatnpapevor (—or) NBLT" 33 Sod'** boh Cyr 1/2 (contra 
rell et Patr Gr permultos) et Orig’, 

xxvi. 45. xadevdete Nouroy (pro xa. To Nowrov) BCLW 273 348 m** 
p* 892 Sod seems to equate 757 and the Latin jam [see 
Liddell and Scott]. Syr with sah and aeth = “ergo.” 

53. mwdece (pro mAevovs) N* BD W-H[non minn ]latt (against Origen) 
xxvii, 48. ee tw Oew (pro emt tov Oeov) B 218 soli latt?! et W-H mg. 
49. evray B fam 13 (and evrov D 69) W-H tzt=abed fr 
g2q but not the others and no vulgates. All other Greeks 
oppose with edeyov. 
XXVili. 14. vio Tov nyeuovos (pro emt Tov ny.) BD 59892 only with W-H 
marg. Cf lat “a praeside.”’ 
15. apyupia (—7a) N*B*W Sod! e¢ W-H tat. Cf lat 
“ pecunia.” 
tbid. onzepov +nuepas BDL and Latin against N and the rest. 
These three places coming so close together after a long while seem 
particularly interesting and noteworthy. Origen opposes B definitely in 
the last place and probably at xxviii. 14, certainly once out of twice there. 
This is again followed by: 
xxvill. 17. mpocexvynoav (—avtw) NBD 33 only and latt (except ¢) vg Hus 
Chr against all other Greeks +avtw with q syr and Coptic. 
Observe now from xxviii. 19 where B adds ovv with ATI, and where 
D adds vuv (and some Latins both ovv and vvuv), that this Latin text 
favoured by B was not of the purest most neutral stock, for N and all 
other Greeks add nothing, having rropevOevres only with EVERY GREEK AND 
Latin FatHer from Irenaeus to Amphilochius. And the same remark 
c 2 


20 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


applies to the Bamticavres of BD (soli; Soden adds none) latt in this 
verse against Samrifovres of all the rest, and the same array of Fathers. 
I am sorry to say that Hort swallows ovy without marginal comment, and 
ventures to put Bamticavres in his margin. 


As to B and Coptic sympathy. 


[Again here observe W, Where W joins is for the Egyptian method 
of the possessive before the noun (vii. 24, 26) and for «va instead of ores 
(viii. 34), which 9,1ma would appear in the bohairic column or at any 
rate be familiar to the ear of an Alexandrian]. 

This feature has been recognised to some extent, but many details 
have been overlooked which make for definite Coptic influence upon 
the parents of B, rather than for mere common basic sympathy with 
a Greek text underlying the Coptics. 


Matt. 


i. 5. Boes NB Ozyr? k sah boh W-H 
ii, 21. evondOev (pro nrOev) NBC 157 278 soli et sah (aqBuoK 
€9,pat) bok (aqr eHow 

iii. 2. —«av (ante Neywv) NB sah boh aeth g2 q W-H Sod. 

vii. 17. Amid vastly differing orders (see under NB in Part II for 
details) B alone with vg™® gives us Coptic order xapzrous 
moter Kadous, bringing xadous last. Tischendorf does not 
notice this and Horner for some extraordinary reason is 
here absolutely silent. Yet Hort places this grandly in his 
margin. If anyone will take the trouble (it takes a good 
half hour) to run through the differing orders, he will rise 
from his examination convinced that B here does not 
alone retain a “neutral” order, but has ‘accommodated ” 
at some time in his career. Soden adds no support for B. 

24, avrouv thy oxcav = NBCWZ 1 33 892 Orig sah boh (ex more 
copt) contra rell omn et latt ryv oxiay avrov. [Anyone 
who will compare what N does elsewhere in this chapter 
(see Part II. under &% and B) will bear me out that he sat 
there playing with the versions, ringing changes in syr, lat 
and copt, as well as improvising himself, as he does in the 
verse previous to this, adding voAna to Sapo). 

26. avrov thv oxtcav = NBWZ 1 604 892 Sod*4 sah boh (more 

copt). Contra rell et Orig (hoc loco) ! 

Vili. 8. amoxpifes Se N*B 33 372 sah [non boh] W-H 
atrexpiOn. .xat ecrev = syr et k t 
Kat atroxptOets > C et rell et latt 





¢ This is rather a pretty picture in an unimportant place of my contention as 
to k (Tisch does not refer to it, so I wish to call attention to it). 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. yal 
Matt. 


vill. 18, oyAov —B sah soli (et W-H tat) 
oxrous N bok soli (rovs oxdous boh) 

The rest wodvv oxAov, oyAov wodkvy (W), Toddous oyAaus OY oxdouUs 
TOAXKOUS. 

A curious place occurs at viii. 27 jin where NBW 1 33 892 Hus Chr 
W-H make the order avtw uiaxevovew against vraxovovew avrw of all 
others, including coptic and the versions; k alone varies, with obaudientest 
tantum, and Hil 1/2 obedisse. In Luke the order of all is also «as 
uTakovovew avtw, but B omits there with 604. Why this change of order 
in Matthew against coptic, latin and syriac? d is available again here 
for the first time and reads obawdiunt et with the mass. Sod adds ° to 
NBW. 


Matt. 


vill. 384. eva (pro ows) BW alone and boh pina (sah xeKac) 
ix. 9. pad@arov NB*D sah [non boh], so at x. 3 again 
12 init. o Se (—enoous) NBD35 248 892 d sah [non boh] aeth¥™*. 


syr sin 
32, xogov (—avOpwrov) NB 71 892 sah boh (ose Ro) aeth syr 
W-H contra rell omn. 
x. 32. ev Tots ovpavots (pro ev ovp.) BCKV al. sah boh Cyr 
sed Orig 1/4 
B80 s3~ 43 5% See. S51. Ges BVX ad. sah boh Cyr sed 
Orig 1/8 
xi. 16. ev ras ayopats (pro ev ayop.) NBZ (1) 124 157 892 ai. 
W-H Sod. sah boh contra rell et Clem (sed ev tn ayopa 
D syr sah™™®, in foro d latt aeth goth) 

xii. 13, cou tyv yelpa (pro tnv xepa cov) NBL min pauc and 892 is 
the coptic manner. See above, and beyond for such preference 
under ‘‘ Genitive before the Noun in Luke.” 

17. wa (pro ows) NBCD1A1 33 Orig Hus boh (see above, viii. 34) 
22. See under “‘ Change of Voice.” 
31. adePnoetas vutv tos avOpwros  B 1 [non 118-209] sah 
syrbier Ath [non boh latt] 
xii, 28. ov de (—Sovdor) B157 g. h bok sah [non aeth rell] W-H tat 
This seems to be a nicety of “pairs.” 0 de edn autois..o d¢ Aeyovow 
uvtw. Very pretty but not legitimate. So both coptics ‘But he, said 
he to them. .but they, said they to him.” It is ridiculous to suppose that 
all others added this SovAcc. Besides Manich®»» opposes B and has it. 
Matt. 
xiv. 8. +rore B cum fam 13 Sod et txt, et sah diserte (ev rovrw 
Tw Katpw); et of k “cum detinuisset.” 





{ This may be primitive. 
} Observe the different character of support to Bin these three places while sah 
boh are constant. 


22, CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


This is clear B and sak sympathy and nothing else. Boh does 
not join nor 8 nor D nor W nor others. 


Matt. 
xvi. 21. IC XC (pro o mncovs) &*B* Sod" sah 2/3 boho™ Practer dao aoginst 


the rest, and they themselves corrected,f and against the other 
versions. (Dominus Jesus aeth, as often = merely “‘ Jesus.”’) 
N® 892 Orig Iren™ plane om. W-H follow NB. 
xvii..8. w avrov povov & 

avrov w povov _B 604 Sod 
rendered perfectly clear from the coptics, where avros is tacked 
on to the word for poves. The Latins do not do it, so we 
may clearly refer this as to both N and B to Coptic I think 
or possibly Syriac.t Following so close on xvi. 21 it is 


| pro tov incovy povov. This is 


instructive. 
14. AOovrav (—avtwv) NBZ 1124 245 Sod" sah 
xviii. 1 init. ev exewn be BM Sod” and only sah 3/6 boho™ 


11 vers om. NBL* 1* [non fam] 13 [non fam] 33 892* e fi sah. 
boh?! syr hier sin Orig (contra rell et syrr rell latt rell aeth ?). 
D has the verse and also W very specially. Observe the 
spacing fo 65 in W. (Sod also omits.) 
14, warpos pov (pro mwarpos yuwv)  BEHIT al. sah boh, only rz of 
Latins, arm aeth, syr sin (only of syr) and Orig* 
16. Matter of order: waparaBe (ert) eva n Sv0 peta co. B ff, 
boh sah only [non al. Sod} 
27. rou Sovrov (~exervov) BSod*°1 124 only with sah 4/7. It may 
be useful to mention the sah mss as they are very definite here. 
They are 111112114 f. (avrov syr cu sin, et aliter pers). 
81. >avtou ot cvvdovdor = BB" cum sah boh 
xix. 16. oyw (pro eyo vel xAnpoveynow) BD Sod™ Orig 1/2. Coptic 
has no verb for ey#, and although oyw probably approxi- 
mates the Latin here, it is interesting to see that sah has erex: 
“take” as against Joh ht raepkAnportogsin “inherit” 
transliterating the Greek of NI and some. 
21. rows mrwyous (pro wrewxous) BD only with sah boh against 
all the rest and against Clem Orig** with a host of Fathers. - 
29. tov epov ovopatos (pro tov ovopatos pov) SB Sod: 
124 [non fam]§ sah boh et W-H tat. 
ibid. woddkaTAactova (pro exatovrathac.) BL Sod fam ¢$° sah syr 
hier Orig? soli W-H tat [non & reil] 


f So it is not likely that cither of the mss N or B influenced bok or sah, seemg that 
the corrections stared the copts in the face. Obs. a place like xxvii. 4 where afwoy is 
used by NB* and the mass, while d:xaov is transliterated by sah. 

$ Syr uses the same expression xvii. 19; not so coptic. 

§ Therefore, as I supposed, the Matthaean recension of 124 was revised in Egypt. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 23 


Matt. 
Xx. 9. edOovtes de Bet W-H tat cwm sah boh*”: (rz syr cu non sin). 


16. -—7oddor yap eiot KAyTOL odvyos Se exdexTor. NBLZ 36 892 
sah boh?! (aeth alig, non Walton) against all the rest and 
datiom™ = syr™ arm Orig’® hoc loco (Barn Hom™™ Clem). 
This is supposed to be dragged in by the mass from xxii. 14, 
but Orig quotes twice at xx. 16, and thrice at xxii. 14. It 
seems a clear ‘“ Egyptian’ removal at xx. 16, for neither 
D nor W nor ¢ nor r, nor ff countenance the removal here and 
syr lat are a unit for the clause. 

34. Savtev tov oupatov B et copt (contra Orig) 

xxi. 11. >0 rpodytys unoous NBD 157 sah boh arm Orig 1/3 Eus 

against all the rest and latt syrr aeth Orig 2/3 

This Origenistic division is most illuminating in all these places, 
leaving NBD alone with Egypt for a base. (Cf BD supra xix. 21). 

It is immediately followed by 

xxi. 12. eis To vepov (—Tov Beov) NBL 18 [non fam] 83 73 604 892 d, 
sah boh again, with arm aeth Orig 2/5 Meth Chr Hil, but seems 
to be a clear harmonistic omission, for tov Oeov is absent from 
Mark (xi. 15) and Luke (xix. 45). (Sod adds %° #4lia) 

Note how closely NB stick to copt here, with Origen again a poor 
wavering witness. 

In such cases Tischendorf (as Turner has pointed out in a general 
way) abandoned his favourite N with great judgment and placed rov Oeov 
in his text, while poor Hort, abject slave to his standard, can only find 
room for tov Geou in his margin. The Revisers restore it to their text (but 
in Souter’s note he says “13 &c. 83 700,” implying the family 13, 
whereas the other members do not support 13). 

As to xxi. 18, I have to refer to another place under “ Historic 
Present.”’ I have followed Dr. Schmiedel’s advice in making such 
subdivisions, but it has much inconvenience for the running argument. 
I state it once for all here.t Observe then that zroverre of NBL Sod 124 
892 is the reading of boh (against sah). Therefore in what precedes here 
as to Coptic, boh is just as old as sah. 

xxi. 15. +rovs (ante xpafovras) NBDILN (sah) boh arm syr against 
the rest and the usual cursives and Orig Meth. Boh is very 
definite here. Tisch. omits to add the versions. 

Again Hort follows what is really a version tradition here against 
Origen and Methodius, L and the rest. 

xxl. 29/31 vers invert. B pauc. cum sah boh ete. 

KX. 37. 0 be edn avtw NBL 33 sah boh Orig (against D latt eby 
avTw moous, and o b€ inoous epy avrw of most, and o de tnaous 
evmev avtw of some) 








t A more elaborate subdivision will be found elsewhere including ‘“‘ Form,’ which 
sometimes finds a place under the unique readings of B. 


24. CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Mai 


xxii, 89 init. Seurepa (~8e) N*B 157 sahl™ boh™ W-H. There seems 
no other attestation. (Sod adds *" [6 or e?] 4°). Other sah 
and boh codd have ae, but some boh ye. Latins have autem, 
while syrr diatess and Cypr have cau Sevrepa. Mark xii. 31 = 
““Sevrepa avtn,” hence this seems Marcan influence, for 
Luke x. 27 continues simply “ «ae tov mAqovov.” 

Exlii. 9. > ver o watnp NBU® 33 892 Sod*3 225 Hust 48 al® Nyss 
et sah boh W-H et Sod txt (contra rell gr et syr lat o watnp upwv) 

38. —epnuos BL ff, sah boh syr sin. I place this here as it 
does not seem basic at all but Egyptian. Orig who (doubt- 
fully) supports once with Cyr 2/3 is contradicted by Orig sve 
Hus re ag well as Clem and Cypr and all other Greeks and 
Latins. ff, appears here owing to its Egyptian influences. I 
do not place this under ‘‘ Harmonistic omissions,” although at 
St. Luke xiii. 85 most authorities omit, for there a good many 
add. It probably belongs in St. Matthew and not in St. Luke. 
BL ff, sah boh syr sin are only complicating the synoptic pro- 
blem here once more. Soden has no new witness for omission. 

Diatess § 41 is quoting from Matthew and has epnos. 
W-Hort here in Matt. exclude epnwos from the text but have it in the 
margin. Souter has it in his text but puts a footnote ‘ om. gpnuos.” He 
gives the evidence of BL, adding a black letter H(*'™). The ff2 is so 
small one can hardly see it, and black letter I makes one think it has 
large Latin support, whereas ff, here is representing Egypt, against e and 
all the rest and all vulgates. 

xxiv. 31, 37, 38, 39 taken together have some significance. 

40. > ecovra: Sv0 =-N*B p** 892 h rr, vg'®¥ and sah, against 
boh and the rest. (For the conjunction h rr, see under Lists 
for NS and Bat xxiv. 11 as well as here. This seems conclusive 
as to h for Irish origin. No other Old Latins join them; and 
observe the full array of ah nr rz at xxvi. 56). Add Soden 

48. > you o xvpws NBCDIL 33157 209? 409 604 892 Sod. perpaue. 
Ephr? sah boh 

ibid. ypoutes (—edAOew) NB 6 33 604 892 sah boh Ephr Irenint 
(against all the rest and against all Latins but Ireni™* which 
shows this is Iren** pure) 

xxv. J. vravrncw (pro aravt.) NBOZ 1 [non fam] 892 (Meth 1/2) 

[male Soden de 157] Cf eg,pen bor 
This in connection with xxv. 6 fin efepyecOe es amavtnow 
(—avrov) by NB 604 alone + Cyr Meth shows such a nice appre- 
ciation of the difference between uvravryow avtov and anavrnow without 
avtou that it should be carefully noted (Z is wanting in verse 6), because 
both coptics and all others and all Latin have avrov in verse 
6 fin. 


Cf in this connection xxvi. 42 wapeAOew (—am epov). 


BIN ST, MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 25 


Note further that at 


Matt. 


viii. 28. 


34. 


xxvill. 9. 


xvii. 12. 


xxii. 10. 


x. 25. 
xvi. 16. 


uTyvTncay auto is used by all on this the first occurrence of 
the expression. 


€l$ UTTaVYTNOLW TOV LnooU NS 33 

els VITAYTNOW Tw inToOU B 1 Sod 

els cuvavTyow tov incov §=©C 157 892 ys* Cyr els aTrayTnow 
els cuvavTnolw Twa incov = Rell omn Tw t. Sod #9 


urnvTnsev avtas is used again by N*BCI23 fam 1 fam 13 
(partim) 604 892 min Orig Cyr against amnvrncev aut. of the 
rest 


. UITNVTNTEY aAVTO NBCDGLA 1 fam 13 28 al?” Dam against 


amnutncev of AIL wnc® al. pl 


. QTAVTNTEL Upby unchanged by all (except v7. 28 Sod”) 


. urnutncey (—avto) NBEWE 1 33 157 604 al” (rell virnvrnoev 


+avto practer T al. pauc arnvt.) 


. TUVHVTNTEV AVTW All (except D cuverdev R ovynvtncar) 
. uravTncas to pera = NABDRXA 1 33 fam 18 (partim) 157 


Paris®*’ 892 Sod” 
aravtnca. Tw peta =LLWTATI unc’ al. pl Bas 
vIrnVInTay avTw NN Sod? fam 1 fam 13 [non 124] 157 
[male Sod] 892 al” Bas Dam 
umnviTncav (—avtw) L et Sod tat 
ATNVTNCAV AUTO AWXTAATL unc? al. pl et B-V 
annvtncay (—avtw) Bet W-H txt 


[omou noav D de (latt)] 
UTavrnce. up CXL al. pauc 892 Sods 
ATAVTNGEL ULV D 124 (az.) al. pauc. Orig 


CuvavTnges vp NABPRWIAAII une? al. pl 


. UTNVTNTAaY avTw SBCDEKLW 1 al” et 892 


arnvrTncay avTe ATAATL unc? al. pl Orig Cyr Chr 


. uUTAVTNTEY avTO by all (except Sod*’) 
. UTNVTNTEY avTw by all (except one) 
. es uravrnow avro NBEFHMQSWTAA al. pi 


els atravtnow avro AKUTI al Origt® (avrov Sod’) 
evs cuvavtnow avto LX 157 al. paue 
es cuvavTnow avtov DG al® 


. UITNVTNTEV AUTO by all (urnvtncav D ¢ d) 


cuvavtnoas avtw by all (cvvavryncavta avtw two) 
uTavTycas nw NBCE min® Orig (auvatravt. two) 
aTravTncal Ni ADHLP al. pl Eustath Chr 


26 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Acts 


xx. 22. cuvavrycovta wow NBLP al. pl Ath Chr (SB epor) 
ovvavtncavta wow =ADEH ai. 
oupPncopeva por = C min® 
KXViii. 15. ets vravtnow vw &* sic (nuw Sod*” 
els uTravTnow nuwy 40 
el; avravtrnow nuw ABHULPN ete Chr Thpyl 1/2 
els atravrnow nov I min® Thpyl 1/2 


1 Thess. 
iv. 17. evs viravtnow To ypiote evs acpa §=D* E* FG 
els UTAVTNTW TW KUPLH ELS aEpa D? 
els cuvayTnutw Tov Kuptou ets acpa )=— Epiph 
els atravrnow Tov xvptov es aepa = BB rell Orig® Hipp Dial 
Eus* Bas al. 
Heb. 


vii. 1. cvvayrnoas, Heb vii. 10 cvynrtncey by all 


Anyone who will have the patience to go through this list will see 
the drift at once. Until the list is drawn up we are at sea. Now it 
appears that vravtaw is purely Johannine, that St. Luke rather favours 
ovvavtaw (as shown by Acts x. 25, xx. 22; Luke ix. 37, xxii. 10), 
but also used vravr. or azravr. elsewhere, where the mss try to confuse 
us. St. Mark uses avavraw xiv. 13, and the mss are divided as to 
amavr. or uvtavr. at v. 2. St. Matthew uses viavrncay in viii. 28, 
where all are agreed, and doubtless cvvavryow at viii. 34, which NB wish 
to change to iv. He seems afterwards to employ azavt. but the Mss 
wish to harmonise his passages (or prefer the Johannine expression) 
and so confuse us at xxv. 1 and xxviii. 9. St. Matthew therefore uses 
all three expressions interchangeably and this has caused the trouble. 
T have no hesitation, after making up this list, of charging wilful change 
by NB at Matthew viii. 34, xxv. 1, xxviii. 9 (probably Mark v. 2, 
Luke xiv. 31) and Acts xvi. 16, where Hustatht contradicts Origen. 
Ceriainly someone is revising. Is it Antioch or Alexandria or Caesarea ? 
Well, observe Luke xvii. 12 and Acts xxviii. 15 for the keys and there 
will be found & and B opposing each other! There seems to be no kind 
of doubt in view of the wavering courses of Li and II and C and X 
that accommodation and revision went on in the different places. 
Instead of “‘neutrally” keeping clear of these matters, NB run to meet 
difficulty and again obscure the issue for us in some of these passages, 
and hence a text founded on NB obscures the problem of the varying 
synoptic language (see Luke xvii. 12 B ¢ W-H soli, L. & Sod solt}). 

Epiphanius shows us at 1 Thess. iv. 17 how carelessly he differentiated 
between the language of one or of another passage. 

After this digression we continue as to coptic sympathy :— 








t Nor is Eustathius’ text of Acts any common “ Antioch” revision, He has a 
most peculiar cast alone with D in one of the few places which survive in his writings. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEN. 27 
Matt. 
xxv. 3. ae yap (pro at Se Z 157 it?!, ac ow Dd ffo, autiwes X plur) 
NBCL 33 892 boh sah 
6. —epyetas NBCDLZ 604 892 sah boh d Meth 1/2 Cyr [contra 
rell omn et syr lat] 
xxvi. 28. ~—xawns (ante SuaOnxyns) NBLZ 33 Sod%87 boh»™* [non sah, 
of ‘‘ Pistis’’| Cyr, against all the rest and Origen Iren. This 
hardly belongs in this list, but I do not know where to place 
it. Ido not charge this as a deliberate omission, yet it looks 
like one. The evidence is overwhelming for the reception of 
xawns, which Hort excludes. The Oxford edition of 1910 
also excludes, but Souter gives the evidence, actually ranking 
“102” for omission. I should have thought 102 was exploded 
long ago as being merely a collation of B. Gregory in his 
Emendanda removed 102 everywhere. Souter adds Cypr for 
omission, as Von Soden (¢ is wanting). Hitherto Cypr had 
been given by Sabatier and Tisch on the other side. 
45, wWou+yap BE p** = sah syr sin Ath”* t 
55. xa@nuepay (— pos vpas) NBLA 33 604 892 sah boh syr 
sin Cyrs Origit 1/3 against all others and against Latin. 
71. ovros (—xat) NBD Sod™ [non 604] sah syr sin (against all else). 
XXVii. 2. miAatw (—ovTiw) NBLY 33 sah boh syr Orig Petr. This 
is @ curious omission against the serried ranks of the other 
Greeks (and W and ® replacing the missing Greek of D here) 
and the Latins, on this the first mention of the name. The 
sah boh syr connection (in the absence of the Latins) does not 
mean that it is necessarily basic. It is to be seen abundantly 
elsewhere that syr sin and sah hang together, not always for 
the purest text. Orig with Petr confirm it as Alexandrian, but 
whether ‘‘ neutral”’ or not is another question. 
23. —nyeuwv NB Sod 33 69 [non fam] sah [non boh] syr™* arm 
(syr™) W-H 
42. Bactreuvs topanr ectiv (—e) NBDL 83 892 d sah (against 
boh and everything else including syr sin Hus Ps-Ath) 
46. ehwer ehwee B e¢ sah literatim soli ef Mare 
ehot erate = Net boh literatim cum 33 al. pauc vg™ia | xv. 34 
In Mark xv. 84 both NB have caw: edwt, while sah repeats ewer 
edwer and boh cedar erwt, but the syr differentiates (with the Greeks) as 
between Matthew and Mark. This tiny place therefore affords a con- 
siderable clue. It is probable that B and sah are closer in St. Matthew 
than elsewhere; in other words, sympathetic readings, although 
including syr sin or others, probably derive from sah, at any rate in 





t ‘But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any readings of B in 
any book of the New Testament which it contains.’”’ Hort, vol. ii. p. 150. Hort did not 
look very far. How about Athanasius here ? 


28 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Matthew. Similarly, as often before, N runs with boh here. It is 
probable that N had before him either sah anp boh, or an edition of 
boh which was nearer to sah than our surviving boh mss show. 


“xxvii. 46. Xeua NBL 33 278 604 Evst 21 22 et boh (al. boh Ceara 
cum sah). ‘The rest Acua or Actua, and Aaya D 
ibid. caBaxravee B vid cum 22? al? sah (pro caBay. rell) 

51. Order: ecxtcOn (atr’) avwbev ews xatw ets Svo0 (hoc loco) BC*L 
sah boh aeth (As syr sin omits xatw evs dvo and 4 Orig Hus 
omit es évo this can only come from coptic). [® goes with 
the rest and Latin order, placing es dvo after exyicOn. | 

58. azrodo@nvat (—To cwua) NBL min™ against all the rest and 
the Latins and arm aeth goth syr pesh Orig™. The support 
is confined to syr sim and the coptics which include avro in 
the verb, while aeth is very definite against them. When acth 
has shown such intense sympathy with NS and B (being alone 
with B in Matthew three times, alone with & over a dozen 
times) it seems fair to bring it into play in a case like this. 

xxviii. 6 fin. exevro (—o xuptos) NB 33 Sod‘ ¢ sah boh arm aeth syr 
sin Orig™ Cyr against the rest and D d, all Latins but e, and 
syr pesh pers (Aeth “sepultus fuit,” the Latins “ positus 
erat,” but e¢ “‘jacebat,” and observe coptic imperfect). 

The e recension hangs absolutely to NB, for at xxviii. 8 e uses 
abissent (areNovoas NBCL fam 13 383) for exterunt of all other Latins 
(and e£eAoveaz all other Greeks). 

See again xxviii. 14 —avrov NB Sod® 33 Orig®® and ¢ only, against 

all else, all Latins, syr copt and Cyrtie 

Add to the coptic list the places under ‘‘ Change of number ” where 
NB prefer the plural. In every case this has the countenance of the 
coptic. 


Traces of Syriac. 
Matt. | - : 7 
x1. 23. > at ev coe yevouevat B (instead of at yevoyevar ev cot of all 


other Greeks and Latins and Coptic) is found to be the order 

of syr sin (against syr cu). Syr sin says “ that in you were 

seen,” but gives this order. It is a curious touch, not observed 

by Mrs. Lewis in her English translation of syr sin, not noted 

by Horner in his notes to sah, but standing plainly in Burkitt’s 

notes to syrcusin (Hing and Syriac sides) andin Merx’ translation. 

I have been accused of seeing fanciful resemblances which are 

merely coincidences and at first sight this might appear to be a mere 

coincidence. I am glad of the opportunity to be more precise and to 

show that these things are not mere coincidences and that the study of 

them is an absolute necessity (quite overlooked hitherto) if we are to 
make progress in tracing the text-history behind Origen. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 29 


It is to be noted then that NBC 1 33 and a few cursives change 
euetvay to ewecvev in this same verse against fourteen uncials and the mass. 
The plural number is supported by all the Latins, and sah of necessity 
for that version has Sodom and Gomorra. The Greek of all is ev coSopors, 
but the Syriacs with the diatess arab have in Sodom and a singular verb. 
The bohairic has Aen coraoara and a plural verb. Syriac then and 
NBC are in sympathy here alone, whatever we may think of the whole 
situation, for euecvay may possibly be revision here for a basic ewevey. Yet 
how is it that D, all the rest, and all the Latins persist in the plural ? 

The only point I wish to make at this place is, however, that as 
syr and NBC are shown alone together here for eyewev (against the 
otherwise friendly Coptic and Latin) it is clear the previous point as to 
special order in the verse with sy7 sin is well taken. Horner and Tisch 
are both silent as to the versions, which is a pity. 

Matt. 
xiii, 86. Suacadnooy (pro dpacov) NB Sod*° 4 (none of the sympathis- 
ing cursives| Orig and syr copt. Obs. also the use of the word by 
Clem (Strom vi. 15: «al xara rov ths ddnbelas Kavéva 
dvacagodvres tas ypadds). [In xv. 15 Greeks all dpacov. 
Copt and syr use the same word as in xiij. 36, Latins vary as in 
xiii. 36]. Both W-H and Sod place S:acagyoov in their texts. 

xii. 22, See under “ Change of voice.” 3B shares (alone among Greeks 
and Latins) the active voice of syr copt aeth. 

31, abeOnoeras vty ros avOpwros B1 Sod™ and syrt sah Ath 
[non boh non latt]. The other Syriacs express, as often, “to 
sons of men,” which may have given rise to it. But perhaps 
place this under Coptic (sah) quite definitely, since Athanasius 
also witnesses. Note this as to Alexandrian readings of B. 

Another peculiar case occurs soon after in sympathy with the 
versions, partially, at— 

xii. 36. Aeyw Se vty ors Tay pyua apyov 6 Aadnoovaw o1 avOpwirot, So 
XB Sod and copt syr. The common Gk text read by nearly 
all is 6 éav Aadynowow. NB drop cay and change the subj. to 
the indicative. The Latins all say quod for o eav (except h 
quodcunque) with Iren'™t and Cypr, but have the subjunctive, 
so they no doubt read 6 éay AaAnowowv. Winer has no remarks 
on this peculiar place for NB, nor has Blass, although the 
latter speaks of it (p. 283) in connection with anacoluthon. 
We must draw our own conclusions, and those are that the 
syr and coptic versions influenced NB. There is much 
difference between “which men may speak” (Lat Gr) and 
“which men shall speak” (syr copt 8B). D also omits cav 
and has Aadovew with d. C has cay but writes AXaAqcoverr. 
Observe now that I and Orig are against NBD, writing o av 
Aarnowcw. (W-H follow NB without marginal comment.) 


30 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Matt. 


xii. 47 versom. N*BLI'126 225 238 400* Sod* (not particularly sym- 
pathetic cursives otherwise) ff; k syr cu sin sah (against boh 
aeth syr pesh arm and the rest of the Latins). I place this 
example here because ff; & are so thoroughly syriac in base it is 
probably the common base of NB sah coming out here, through 
syr, rather than an “improvement” in their time. Of course 
this can also be grouped under “ Omissions from homoiote- 
leuton”’ as ver 46 and ver 47 both end with Aadnoa in most 
Greeks, but in ver 46 BCZ end Aarnoa avtw, while & omiis. 

xiv. 24. oradsovs moddovs amo THs yns (pro pecov THs Baracons vel nv 
eis pecov THs Bar.) B (Sod) fam 13 syr sah boh 
29. nat nrOev (pro edhOewv) BC* 604 Sodsinae syr (ut veniret lat) 
xvi. 4. aster (pro &ret) B**! (syr word serves for either expression 
but actually pers" gives this petit following other B sympathy) 
xvii. 8. autoy ty povoy B™ cum Sod (and N*! w avrov povor) Cf. 
syr and copt and see under “‘ Coptic inflaence ” as well. 
15. xupte eXenoov pov Tov vov pou B*", Cf. syr sol xupie pov 
edencov pe’ o wos pou... et aeth Domine miserere mei filiique 
mei 
xviii. 19. e£ vywy (pro vpwr) NBDL al. pauc. syr latt 
xxii, 9/10/11/12. See under ‘‘Improvement.”” As sah repeats the beth 
in verses 9, 11 and 12 and syr does not, it is probable that 
syr is the chief influence in NBL in verse 10. 
xxv. 23. > micros ns =B hr syr soli (et hoc loco et ver 21h r syr; in 
ver 21 vg®) quia super pauca fidelis ¢ (— 7s) 
42. I do not know whether we ought to attribute + «ae before 
eduynoa here to syriac influence, but only BL add with syr 
pesh diatess and aeth (not exhibited in Walton’s translation, 
but present in the text). [W-H tat]. 

Add to the above an interesting place at vi. 1 where for eXenwoovvny 
of most Greeks and k, Sixastoovvny is read by N*°BD tf zd?! syr sin hier, 
while Socw is given by that early corrector N* with bok and syr cu (Swpa 
Ephr). The end of the words for “gift” and “righteousness” is the 
same in Syriac. S:catoovvny and Socw probably grew out of a revision, 
comparing with syr. But in verse 3 all have edenuoouvny. 

[Observe the scant support NB get from the ms W in all the above. } 


As to ‘* Form.” 


I have neglected most small matters of form, as evav, xataBarw, 
petaBa, poBeobe, poryevOnvat (pro poryacbat), etc. 

I might call attention to Matt. xxviii. 4 where NBC*DL 33 have 
eyevnOnoay and the rest eyevovro with Dion? Hus, while syr sin omits the 
verb altogether. 





t Harris gives 892 for d:xaroovrny in verse 2. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 31 


Observe Mark i. 27 eOauBnOycav NSB and all except D who with 
Orig writes eOau8noav, while W alone has efavyafov. (In Luke iv. 36 
the expression is xav eyevero OapBos). 


Synonyms. 
Matt. 
xili, 80. ayps N*e° L: Chr 1/3 See also 
ews BD Chr 1/3 Eulog XXvili., 15 ews NDI 213 Orig 1/2 
peypt C rell et &> Chr 1/8 Hexyps B reli Orig 1/2 
C and D alone are constant re- 
This tells a tale of preferences. spectively in both places. 


Cf note on zreps/vmep under Luke vi. 28. 
Cf Matt. xx. 20 aw avtov (pro tap avtov) BD 604 (latt sah). 


xxi. 2. xarevavte NBCDLZ® 892 min Orig® Hus 1/2 (parallel Mark 
xt, 2 and Luke xix. 30 «atevayts all) 
amevavtt KE reli Orig Hus 1/2 
xxvii. 24. carevavtt BD soli et W-H tat 

amevavtt & rell et Acta Pil 

61. Katevayts D! 
atevavts NB rell 
emt wel 

Mark 


xi. 2. xatevavt. fere omn (parallel Matt. xxi. 2, Luke xix. 30) 
xu. 41. aevavre BU 33 min® Dam 
Kkateverrtov (fam 18) 
xatevavtt ®& rell et D et Origr® 
xill. 3. xatevayvts  omn 
Luke 
xix. 80. xarevavte. —_fere omn (parallel Mark xi. 2, Matt. xxi. 2) 

I think this tells the tale, without going outside the Gospels. In 
Matt. xxi. 2 xarevavrs has been borrowed from the parallels (Mark xi. 2, 
Luke xix. 30) where xarevavrs stands without variation. Why should 
“Antioch” vary uselessly in Matthew? It is the group SBLZ which 
“accommodated.’’ The adhesion of D is nothing, for he prefers xatevayts 
alone at Matt. xxvil. 61 and goes with B alone at Matt. xxvii. 24, while 
Eus is to be seen using both expressions in Matt. xxi. 2. I repeat: 


Matt. 
xxi. 2. xatevavre NBCDLZ Orig 1/2 Eus 1/2 (contra rell et Orig 1/2 


Bus 1/2) 
xxvil. 24. xarevayte BD soli (contra rell omn) 
61. xatevaytt D solus (contra rell omn) 
These are the only occasions where the word is used in St. Matthew. 
Could there be a prettier picture that amevavrs is Matthaean? In the 
only place where we have the conspiracy of NBCDLZ both Orig and Eus 


82 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


are found to hold both readings, of which xatevavts was preferred by 
the mss. Where their testimony is absent B ventures to join D in one 
place and not in the other. D alone is consistent in all three places. 
If D be right, the others are clearly wrong in not giving us xatevayrs in 
all three places. 

But I am pretty sure that avevayvts is Matthaean, and xatevayts 
Marcan. Note again the Marcan wording: 


Mark 
xi. 2. xatevayre all but a few scattering witnesses. 


xii. 41. xarevavrs all and 69-124 (and catevwmiov 138-346-556) except 
BU min® Dam arevayrtt 
xii. 8. xatevavts all 
And note in St. Luke : 
xix. 80. xarevavts all but a few scattering witnesses. 

So that although B tries to obscure the issue again in Mark (where 
the absence of ND shows he is wrong) he cannot do it. azrevayrs remains 
Matthaean, and carevayrs Marcan and Lucan. 

[In the epistles carevwroy is the expression. Hence the reading 
above of part of the 13 family.] But it is just in such places that our 
tables of synoptic wording have become muddled owing to the use of the 
Westcott and Hort text. 

As tO avaytaw, cuvavtaw, vravtam see under ‘‘ Coptic” at Matthew 
xxv. 1. 


Grammatical Changes : 


Of voice, of mood, of tense [and see separately for historic present, 
of case, of number, and of order. 


Change of Voice. 
Matt. 
xii. 22. mpoonveyxav avtw Saipovifopevov tupdov Kat xwhov B (syrr 
diatess sah boh aeth) against all Greeks and Latins: 
mpoonvexOn avtw Satmortouevos TupAos Kat Kaos. 

This is a most important passage, for it is uncomplicated by the 
parallel Luke xi. 14 (g.v.). It also involves a change of case. 

Hort has the temerity to place it in his text on the sole authority of 
B® and versions, against ND and all other Greeks and all the Latins 
conjoined. Soden now adds 3 (6 30) and his 1444, but not Sinaz 260. 

Of many minor variations in this passage and in this verse we need 
not take account here. The plain fact remains that B followed the 
versions here with the active voice, and from the form it is coptic rather 
than syr which (with ff; h) expresses “‘ and they brought to him a certain 
demoniac who was dumb and blind” (syr pesh; “blind and deaf” syr cu). 

The matter is in a nutshell here for any who will examine it. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 33 


Matt. 


xix. 20. epuraka (pro epvdakaynv) NBDL 1 22 Ath against the 
rest and Origen Ath Chr. In Mark x. 20 edvdaka is read by 
AD 28 892 Clem Orig (the more semitic evounoa by fam 1 2°° 
syr sin, as Ephr Aphr in Matthew) but epuvdrataunv by NB 
rell. In Luke xviii. 21 epvrata by SABL fam 1 Dial against 
epuratauny D and the rest. The question may well be asked 
why syr sin uses evrornoa only in Mark, with fam 12°¢ This 
Marcan recension must be further enquired into. Servavi 
is there used by vg?™@ See further remarks under the head 
of ‘“‘ Improvement.” 

Observe at Matt. xxvii. 57 NCD fam 1 33 273 604 Evst 17, but no 
others, change the voice of euafnrevoev, by B and the rest, to euabnrevOn, 
probably because it follows xaz avtos. 

paOntevw ig essentially Matthaean (and only occurs elsewhere once 
in Acts xiv. 21 pabnrevoavres). At Matt xiii. 52 we read palnrevbeas, 
and at xxviii. 19 pa@ntrevoate. I only mention it to show how liberties 
are taken, even when the combination & 1 33 604 includes D. B is 
absent here from this combination and on the active side, and rightly, 
for the classical synonyms are generally used in the active voice. 

Ignatius (ad Rom § v) however: ‘‘’Ev 6€ tots aduxjjpacw abitev paddov 
padyrevopat* ard’ od Tapa TodTO Sedixaiwpar”’ uses the middle. 


Change of Mood. 


xl. 36. 6 AaAncoucer (pro ocav AadAnowow) NB (and D do Aadovew) 
against the rest and L and Orig. (See further under ‘‘ Traces 
of Syriac.’’) 


Change of Participle Tense: aorist for present. 


xiii. 18. ozeipavtos (pro oreipovtos) N*BXW® 33 213 Sod*:* Hust 4 
soli [seminantis latt copt (syr), D rell oretpovtos | 
94. omepavte (pro gmepovtst) NBMXWATI min alig latt pl et 
verss [sed seminanti dh k 8 vg® et reli gr et D] 
It looks as if while omepavts may be right in xiii. 24 that 
omepovte is right in xiii. 18 and that NBXW® there are merely trying 
to equate the two passages, which should not: equate but differ 
slightly. 

xii. 23. curves (pro curv) NBD*@ 238 892 Sod Orig. This 
appears very deliberate, as much for the sake of euphony 
with ozapess perhaps or for contradistinction of the pair 
axovov..cvyiwy as for anything else...omapeis ovTos eotiv o 
Tov Aoyov axovey Kat cues. They do not write suves but 
cuviets SO that apparently the present participle is intended 

D 


34 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Matt. * 
: but in a different form. But see Rom. iii. 11 where curiwy is 


accepted by all. 

Observe however B at Luke xxiv. 45 alone writing ovvewas (aor. inf.) 

for cuvtevat. (W cvvetevat.) 
Xxiii. 17. 0 ayiacas (pro o ayatov) NBDZ 892 d (ad no doubt 
following his Gk, because all other Latins are against d). 
No cursives appear to join NBDZ besides 892, and sah 
boh arm aeth with the Latin appear to be against the 
change. I believe o ayiacas to be an ‘‘improvement,”’ 
followed however by Soden as well as Hort. The place, 
however, should be considered in connection with: 
21. xatotxouvts (pro Karouenoavts) NBHS® fam 1 fam 18 etc. 
txt. recept. latt copt et verss vid. Here CDUZTAII al unc’ 
oppose with xatotxnoavrt, as do W2W and as does 892. 

Here the versions reverse their position and go with NB. One’s 
preference would be against NB in xxiii. 17 and with them in xxiii. 21 
where they hold the textus receptus. 

Hort has a very unsatisfactory solution, for he places ay:acas in his 
text verse 17 without marginal comment, while in verse 21 against 
xatotxouvtt he has in his margin xatocxnoavtt, so there seems to have 
been no system, unless D was considered an absolute balancing factor. 
Soden has ayacas and xatotxnoayte. 


As to Infinitive. 


Interchange of present and aorist infinitive and imperative. 
Examples : 


xii. 10. Gepareveat eas where & and B are on different sides. 


Oeparrevewy 
xiii, 3. o7rewpas NDLMXW minn alig 
oTretpelv B rell 
xvi. 21. Secxvvae B™ cum Orig*™ [Soden adds nothing] 
Secxvvery N rell et Origsve 
XxHHi. 23. adewvat NBL x*F 7pe 
agvevat CD rell omn 


As to infinitive tenses ¢f Orig Eus ad Matt xxiii. 87 emiovvata 
(pro emiovvayayev) and cf Luc. 


Imperative. 
v. 42. 805 NBDW jam 18 [non 346] 892 Sod": 28° Clem 
Svd0u plur 
xix. 17. type BD soli et W-H txt (rnpn 2°) 


THPNoOV NCL rell 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 35 


Matt. 


So at xxii. 17. evrov LZ 33 


xvill. 17, evrov NL Orig against ere NB rell 
evmre B rell Cyr Bas and xxiv. 8. ewrov Li 1 33 
against ere NB rell 
XXi. 2. wopeveoOe SBDLZi min” Orig Eus Chr 
aropevOnre C rell 


Change of Case. 
Genitive Absolute. 


viii. 1. xataBaytos Se avrov (pro xataBavrt Se avtw) BC(Z)W Sod 
and N> 892 min alig W-H & Sod txt 

As this is the first case to be noticed, it should be observed most 
carefully that N* does not do this here. So that NS opposes B at 
the very outset of a series in ch. viii. as to what is, I am convinced, 
a deliberate change. The point is that, as Burgon expressed it,f writing 
upon “‘style’’: ‘‘ The attentive reader of 8. Matthew’s Gospel is aware 
that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his viii‘® and 
ix't chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel,— 
viz. in his xxi** chapter.” Burgon referred to viii. 1 xataBavrt avro, 
vill. 5 exceAOovte To I., vili. 23 ewBavts avtw, vill. 28 eAOovts avrw, ix. 27 
Kat Tapayovtt To I., ix. 28 eAOovre Se, xxi. 23 Kat eAOovte avTw. 

Now as B does not change all these datives, it might be thought 
that ‘‘ Antioch” for some reason had made a harmonious whole and 
turned some genitives into datives in the supposed revision. It is just 
here that ® offers its important testimony, for N does not use the 
genitive on the first occasion, thereby showing that it was Egypt which 
revised some of St. Matthew’s datives, and not Antioch which cancelled 
some genitives. See further remarks under this head in St. Luke and 
St. John. 

The second case occurs four verses later, at :— 

viii. 5. escedovtos de avrov NBCZ 892 min alig W-H & Sod txt 
(Orig esceXMovtos Tov Kupiov) 
but  esredAOovte Se avtw all the rest 
viii. 28. nas edOovros avtov BC et N° ® Sod et Sod** 892 min 
pauc (Kat eAMovtev avtwyv &*) 
Kat eXOovtt avTw all the rest 
xxi. 23. «ae eXOovtos avtov NBCDL® 1 fam 18 83 604 8992 
Sod’ [non al.] Orig bis W-H & Sod txt 
Kat €Movtt avTw the rest 

What is this but a Greek “improvement”? The small limited group 

speaks for itself. 
t ‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 141. 
D2 


36 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


It is noteworthy that avtw dédaccovts remains unchanged later in 
the verse (although some Latins and Syr omit S:dacxorts, expressed by 
the other Latins ad ewm docentem) so that the dative absolute rather 
hangs together throughout: Kas edOovTs avtw ets To Lepoy mpoondov 
avtw SidacKovts... 

See beyond in the other Gospels as to Genitive Absolute, where we 
find the same revision to the Genitive in St. Mark, but nothing of the 
kind in St. Luke and St. John, because there were no datives to revise ! 


Kind of Accusative Absolute (involving Change of Order). 
Matt. 
xxvi. 40. L alone [Soden adds no others] changes evpev avrous cafevdovtas 
to evpey kaSevdovtas autous 
Observe in the parallel in Lvuxkz xxii. 45 NBDLTY do the same: 
eupey KOLpwpevous avTovs instead of evpev avrovs Kxoys. Observe 
further that T is a graeco-sahidic, and therefore this Greek is contrary to 
coptic order. Note that d (alone of Latins) follows with dormientes eos, t 
and note that in Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 37 40 no change is made in the 
order, and it becomes a personal matter where the change 1s made. 
To this add: 
xvii. 25. Among a tremendous variety of readings distributed over the 
“clever” mss, the usual reading ore evonAGev by the mass of 
Greeks is confirmed by the versions, but where Dd dn use a 
dative (absolute) evocAOovts, and 33 a genitive abs. eA@ovrwy 
avtwv, and Sod fam 13 ecedOovrwy, and @ is content with 
intrantes, % and B use an accusative, N* eseAOovta cus tH 
ovx., BN 1 892 edOovra evs ovx. In view of the immense 
variety of expressions [see under “‘ Differences between NS and 
B’’] it must fairly be admitted that NB are improvising. 
Now note: 
xxvi. 71, where NBLZ. 892 min pauc do not care for an acc. absolute, 
for they suppress avrov in e€eAOovta Se avrov, the reading 
of nearly all others. D® Evst 17 have e€e@ovtos Se avtou (d 
latin wanting) and the Latins mostly favour exeunte autem 
illo, but an “egressus.” As to b r they actually give us a 
Latin acc. absolute ‘‘exeuntem autem illum,” ff, as printed 
“ exeunte autem illum,” g; “ exeuntem illo.” 
W confirms e£eAOovra Se avrov, and from the Latin testimony it looks 
as if avrov had been suppressed by NBLZ. 





+ As if “ dormientibus illis invenit eos.” 

But not elsewhere in the other four passages (Matt. and Mark), so that, as I have 
often thought throughout the study of Luke, the conjunction of D with NBL has a different 
significance in this Gospel to what it has elsewhere. It is not ‘“‘ Western” agreeing with 
NBL, but NBLD in St. Luke’s Gospel the outcome of some common text tradition. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 37 


Change of Case. 
Matt. 
x. 16. es To pecov AvKwy B (for ev rw pecw Avewv) ff, k vg® (Lucif). 
This is clear “improvement” after avocrehAw vas. Cf also 
Matt. xxvii. 5. (Note D™ at Luke x. 3 pecov AuKw). 

25. Tw otxodeororn and Tots ouxvaxots B* alone (pro tov otxodecmotTny 
and tous otxtaxous) (governed by ereradeoav) ; commen text is 
exareoav, but nearly all authorities are for eexar. emixadew 
would seem to favour a dative, while cadew (except in middle) 
takes accusative. Iuachmann and W-H mg follow B. 

xiv. 19. em. tov yopto NBC*IWES®@ Sod 1 22 838 al Origaet 
W-H Sod txt 
ert tov xoptov 16 61 892 latt sah boh pl aeth arm (syr cu) 
eme Tous yoptous C*E rell unc omn min pl [non verss praeter 
boh® syr sin ?| 
em. tav (THs) ynv (yns)  boh® syr pesh 
emt TOU YOpTOUS Sic L (ef Exar nexoptcc sah) 

Whether “ herbage” plural or ‘“‘grass”’ singular is original cannot 
be determined. I incline to the reading of D, regarding the genitive after 
emt here as an ‘‘improvement”’ of NB Origen. 

The foregoing is more important than it seems, for very close after 
occurs another case which I think illustrates the matter perfectly, and 
fixes the authorship of both changes as that of Origen. 

xiv. 25. emt tnvOadkaccay NBPT*WAO® Sod 1 [non 118-209] 
fam 13 22 238 Sod "9 Orig 
ere TnS Oaracons CD rell Eus§ 

Observe this is a change in inverse ratio to the last. The genitive of 
rest—(we can almost see Origen at work)—belongs to émi rod yoprov in 
ver 19, but the accusative of motion belongs to émi tiv Oddaccay in ver 25. 
Tisch emphasises our point for us by saying of Origen “ praeterea notat : 
ov ‘yeyparrrau* nAOe Tpos aVTOUS TrEpiTATWY ETL TA KUUATAa, AX ETL TA VdaTA,” 
Clearly then Origen employed the accusative after em here as of motion 
on or over the waters, and the accusative must be an emendation for the 
poor fisherfolk’s Greek genitive. 

Itis true that in the next verse 26 NBCD(T*) have coovtes avrov emt Ts 
Garacons TepuratouvTa and not er: thy Gar. wepur. as the rest, but I doubt 
whether this affects my contention, as “they saw him on the sea.. 
walking.” Besides it is a delicate point as to the exact case which em 
should govern here. 

My point seems well taken, because a little further on ® gets an 
opportunity and avails of it (xvi. 19) to exhibit the difference between 
dnons emt THs yns, Which he leaves unchanged, and Avaons ere THs YNS, 
which latter he changes to Avons exe THY yD. 

But these little things were done in passing, because at xvili. 18 
AvaNTe ere THS yns (Lollowing Snore ers Tys yns) is left unchanged by N. 


38 


Matt. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


xxv. 18. See p. 67. Nothing further occurs until 
7, where NBDM©° fam 1 (118 hesitans) fam 13 [non 124] 106 


XXVi. 


XXVii. 


Xi. 


xiii. 


[ xvii. 


Xvi. 
RXV. 


XXVi- 


XXVii. 


48, 


82. 


16. 


31. 


52. 


801 604 et Fvstteee™ prefer ems rns xepadns for ems Tov Kehadny 
of the rest and Basil. In Mark xiv. 3 a partitive genitive is 
used xateyeey avtou Tys Kepadns (—emt). Perhaps the Marcan 
diction influenced NBD in Matthew. The presence of ten 
Lectionaries and but few cursives lends some emphasis. 
merrowev ext tw Sew  B 213 alone for ver. emt tov Jeov with 
lait”! [non ¢ d f g, vg?®®] with Hus 1/2 and Juvencus. Apart 
from possible Latin sympathy, it would seem to be the most 
delicate appreciation among Greeks of the alternative case to 
use after a certain shade of meaning of the verb. I class it here 
and under Latin, as well as under solecisms of B. Observe Eus is 
on both sides. Hort put rw ew in his margin. 


Change of Number. 


. See under ‘“‘ Improvement.” 
. avEavovew and KxoTiwow and vnfovcw NB Sod fam 1 4 33 


273 Sod!* Ath copt et verss for av€ave .. xomia . . vnGer (after 
Ta Kpwa Tov aypou) of all the rest. Soden txt plural as well as 
Hort. 

erufntovew (pro erityte) after ta e6vn NB min pauc copt 
contra rell. We have to assume that all others strove for im- 
provement by writing the verb singular, or that NB thought 
it best to employ the plural. Soden txt plural like Hort. 


. euewvev (pro euevay) see under ‘“ Syriac.” ] 
. (Improvement) edayov for epayev NB 0%. W-H not Sod. This 


follows eio7\Oev, but is accommodated to the previous verse 
3 ove aveyvwte tt exotnoe AGS ott evretvacev (avTOS) Kat OF mEeT 
avtov. Obs. here that the coptics oppose NB and have edayev. 


. eaverethav (pro eEaveresrev) B only with vg and some latins 


*‘ exorta sunt” (and k fructicaverunt) and coptic. 
axovovow (pro axovet) following wra (to accord with Brerovew, 
following however o¢@adpor) NBCDMX* al Orig latt contra 
unc” al. pl. 


. L (and HUD) change eyevero following aria avtov to eyevovto. 


Not so D* (although d is facta sunt) nor B rell. It is 
mentioned to show the tendency as represented by L.] 


. See under ‘‘ Improvement.” 
. cuvaxOnoovras (pro avvaxOncerat) as to mavta ta evn 


NBDGKLUII al. 
SiacxoprricOncovtat (pro -ceTat) a8 to Ta mpoBaTa 
NABCGH*ILM al. copt Orig 1/2 
nyepOnoay (pro nyepOn) as to troAAa cwpata by NBDGL [non 
W] min perpauc copt Orig Hus (avertnoav Cyr) seems clearly 
Egyptian. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 39 


{The singular verb after neuter pl. is not unusual in N.T. Greek. 
Cf Matt xiii, 4 xare@ayer all as to ta merewa, although some have dor. 
The Latins and d all venerunt and comederunt incl. d agst D* 
rOov .. xatepayev. The cases mentioned above trace to the ‘ version 
influence ’’ and predominantly to the coptic, which favours the plural 
after these neuters. But observe that W avoids all this. ] 

The point here raised seems to me to be of a good deal of importance 
and quite interesting. At first sight the narrow view may be that 
these few Egyptian mss, representing as Hort might have said ‘the 
watchful scholars of Alexandria,” are preserving “the true text”? with 
their plural verbs, and that ‘“‘ Antioch,” in a purist mood, changed them 
to the singular after the neuter plurals. To do this ‘ Antioch” would 
have had to forget the versions ringing in its ears, and have outdone 
Alexandria in an affectation of purism in its Greek. Since the 
Egyptian practice however, as represented by the Copts, is to employ the 
verb in the plural number in such cases, it is more likely that these few 
Egyptian Mss (plus some others in certain of the cases) displaced the 
singular in the Greek from an innate habit in such cases. It would not 
merit so much attention if we did not find these mss habitually revising 
throughout. But as we do, and as we shall prove this in these pages, I 
consider the probabilities are that the singular number employed by the 
‘‘ traditional ” text is the correct base and was modified in Egypt, owing 
to the ‘‘ version tradition.” The cases at vi. 28, 32 and xiii. 5 (B alone) 
are to be considered more especially in this connection. 


Change of Order. 


Matt. 
vi. 33. > Kat Ty Sixaocurny Kat Tyv Bac iheay avrov B alone 


xi, 9. >mpodnrny ew for We rpodytny; N*BZW 892 Sod Orig 
26. > evdoxia eyevero NBW Sod 1 33 892 k (copt) Sod tat 

xi. 44. > evs tov ocwov rou emiotpeyw NBDZ 7 33 892 aeth against 

rell and all other versions. Sod txt follows NB. 

xiil., 89, > 0 de ex@pos extev 0 omretpas avta o SiaBoros B alone 

eotw alone occupies this position in B. He may have 
hesitated as to omission of aura, or of eyOpos as some. 

xiv. 18. > hepere pou wde avtous (pro depete fsot avtous woe) NBZ 
33 vg? only. This is a small matter but an almost impossible 
order, and against sah and (bok). wéde is omitted (and the 
‘‘neutral” text me judice is without it) by Dd 1 boh alig 
syr cu sin it?! [the vulgates vary the order tremendously] 
vg No doubt it was added in the margin of the parents 
of NBZ and found its way into the wrong place in the 
text. Soden however follows Hort and NBZ. 


40 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Matt. 
Xvi. 21. > ors det avrov evs IepocodupaarenOey NBD* 1 fam 1333157 


y** e Orig Ireni™* Hil (for ots Set avrov are Oew evs lepoc.). The 
change savours of improvement but Soden likes and adopts it. 

xvii. 4. >oxnvas tpes Be (cf Luc ix. 83) W-H marg. 

xix. 16. > rpocedOwy avtw evrev (pro tpoceOwv evrev autw) NB Sod? 
fam 13 157 892 Sod ** (et txt) e f sah arm aeth Chr Auct? imp 
(Just) against the rest and syr. This involves a change in 
the sense. Boh and Old Latins a b c g h q complete with 
TpoceNOwy aUTw ELTTEV AUTH. 

It is rather indeterminate, for while Justin*?! says mpocedbovtos auto 
TWoS Kat evovTos, in Trypho he says Neyovtos avtw tivos (Clem*™ and 
Marcos™™ are indeterminate). 

Xxil. 28. >ev Ty avactaces oww NBD fam 1 fam 13 2°° (Sod) 604 
Sod'**s boh syx (om ovv syr sin) for ev Tn ovv avactacet 
of nearly all other Greeks and sah. Soden follows Hort 
and NBDL. 

It seems to bea sheer improvement. D joins probably because 
d had it with the other Latins, who had already changed the 
order when translating, as syr pesh (but syr sin omits). What 
reason on earth could there be for poor ‘‘ Antioch”’ to change 
to ev ry ov avactace: ? 
40. (involving change of number) A most important place : 

ev Tavtats Tals dvow evTodats odos (om NI syr diatess copt) 
0 vomos >Kpepmatas Kas ot Tpopytas NBDLZ> 33 892 (pro 
ev TavT. T. Svaoly EVT. OAOS 0 VOLOS >Kat OL TpOdNTat KpEewavTat 
W® unc™ rell min et fam 1 13 604 2P¢ omn) 

The change is very old but still looks like ‘‘improvement.” With 
NBDLZ= 33 892 are ranged the Latins including Ter#/™ with syrr [but 
diatess™ “are hung the law and the prophets,” as aethi"* “pendent tota 
lex et prophetae’”’; notice the order], while for W® and the mass, 
including all the important cursives (but 33 892) are to be added sah boh 
very distinctly—sah : ‘‘The law and the prophets are hanging on these 
two commandments,” doh: “On these commandments two the law with 
the prophets were hung ’’—together with Clem’ (ev rovrw odos o vomos Kat 
ot Mpodnra: Kpe“avrat, and : ev TavTais AEYyEe TALS EVTOAALS ONOY TOY VopLOV Kat 
tous mpognras Kpepacbat Te Kat cEnprnoBa), also Orig 1/5 and Orig***. 
Basil is on both sides. Thus it is by no means certain that NB are 
right. Their great allies the sah and boh desert them,t and I prefer the 
harder reading of W. (Soden tat follows Hort and NB etc.) 

xxiv. 44, > ov Soxerte wpa (pro 7 wpa ov Soxetre) NBDI 604 892 d vg 
boh Ath contra reil 

It is a little suspicious for Ath joins, and Li says 7 wpa 7 ov 
Soxere, not going with XB, but Sod follows Hort and NBDI. 


+ Plainly then neither sah nor boh used N or B. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 41 


Matt. 
xxvi. 86. > exes mpocevEwpas (p7'0 rpocev€. exer) NBDL fam 69 [non 


124]f 83 157 892 Sod® et tetabed f ffih qr sah boh Orig" 
(Hi 91-2 aeth itluc et orem). This is a place where with a 
good many others (not noticed) copt and lat together support 
NB. Read exes evfouae 604 [non —; corrige ed.| after the 
Egyptian form. 
Thus at xxvi. 89 mpoehOwr (for rpocehOwv) BMU™* are supported by 
Latin ‘“ progressus” (d only accedens) and sah boh very distinctly also 
support mpoedOwv. 


Historie Present. 


“Tt will be seen in the following lists that the ‘ historic present’ is 
very frequent in Mark’s narrative, comparatively rare in Matthew’s, and 
extremely rare in Luke’s.... Now if (as we see was probably the case 
in other matters) Matthew and Luke made this change of phraseology 
from Mark, they were only preferring a more usual to a less usual mode 
of expression. For it appears from the LXX that the employment of 
the historic present had been up to this time by no means common with 
the writers of the sacred story in the Kew or Hellenistic Greek... 
And Dr. J. H. Moulton says that it is common in the papyri.” (‘ Hore 
Synoptice,’ Hawkins, pp. 1483/4.) 

It follows from this that St. Matthew and St. Luke changed the 
historic present of St. Mark’s source if that source was a written one 
and the one from which they drew. Or that they found in their ‘‘Q” 
few historic presents, or if they found them that they changed them.{ 

Then, later, the papyri show us, and Alexandrian second and third 
century writers bear this out, that the historic present, and especially the 
imperfect, came into vogue. Hence the changes in this direction found 
in 8 and B in Matthew, Luke and John (cf. Matt xiv. 19 xerever Orig 2/3). 

If one consults Tischendorf at Apoc. xii. 13 as to eduefev, we read in 
his note: “N* e£eduw£ev (N* corrupte edwxev).” But it is nothing of the 
sort. ede«ey is corrupte for edvaxev. I found this confirmed by the full 
commentary of Oecumenius in Apoc 146 (Messina®) where the imperfect 
stands in his text and is repeated three times over in his commentary. 
Gigas’ latin also gives the imperfect. I mention this in an introductory 
manner, because the text of Oecumenius’ ms of the Apoc. is thoroughly 
blexandrian and unites the base of N and A, and this (unpublished) 
passage gives us a true picture of Alexandrian usage. See my article on 
Occumentus in American Journ. of Philology, Oct. 1913. 








{ Hiat 18; apocevéopar xaxer 124, Ome exer 4.2? arm syr. 

t This “Q” business seems to me to lack a proper foundation. St. Luke’s language 
is so utterly his own that he could hardly have used any other written source than notes 
prepared for his own use. Consult Dr. Hobart’s work on the ‘Medical Language of 
St. Luke,’ Dublin, 1882. Every page of St. Luke’s Gospel is saturated with his own way 
of expressing matters, now expanding, now contracting the narrative, but ever with a 
method, a manner and a diction which are personal. 


42 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Matt. 
Kili. 28. Aeyouow (pro esrov) NBCD 383 (Sod) 157 892 Sod" 
latt pl (against rell and f ff; q sah boh arm aeth) 

How come NB to desert coptic here? The authorities do not agree 
about this verse, for B drops the Sovdc: so as to make a pair o Se edn 
avrois . . ot Se Aeyoucw avto, and BC write avtw Aeyovow while ND 
Aeyovew avtw; and edn at the beginning is changed to the present 
by the Latins ait. Cf the next verse ¢yow or deyee NBC Jatt (all 
varying among themselves) against edn and evev of the majority. Cf also 
long quotation from Epiph™*" in Tisch. showing some interesting 
variations. (—avtw Sod cum pers). 

xiii. 52. Neyes (pro ecmev) B**DIJ 892 Sod'** 444 yg it 

But this is more than a historic present (Aeyovow avTw vas‘ eyet 
avtois...) to conform to the Aeyovew preceding, for it shows that when 
reyes follows Aeyovew thus, B°* does not object as the historic present is 
maintained, while elsewhere to avoid tautology (see under “ Improvement” 
Matt. xii. 48, Luke ix. 21) Aeyovrs is substituted for ewrovrs following 
€L7rev. 

We shall see much more later on of the historic imperfect favoured 
by the Alexandrian school and B. An illustration offers at Matt. ix. 9 
of & (who also elsewhere prefers this) deliberately siding with D 21 892 
d alone of all authorities (+ Sod*** et Sod txt!) for nxodovbe: here instead 
of nxodovbncev, which should be noted, as it opposes all other Greeks, and 
all Latins (but d@) and both coptics. 

In the very next verse but one (ix. 11) NBCLW 892 al*"4 prefer 
edeyov with many latins to evrov against the rest and d k copt. Soden txt 
does not adopt edeyov although his same new MSS as in 1x.9do so. Again 

ix. 19. nxorovbes NCD 38 Sod‘ (non txt) lati”; neodovOnoce B reli 
copt f k 
28. They prefer this historic imp. even above the historic present, 
having here eheyer NBD 892 it?! boh, against dixit c gi h 
k sah syr Sod“ ecmev, and Aeyee CW unc! gr mult 

The same applies to ix. 30 where NB* fam 1 22 892 (those faithful 
adherents, see at vi. 5, 18) Sod'”® et txt prefer eveSpinOn to eveBpimnoato 
of all the rest and versions (but comminabatur by aeths+ Walton) 

xv. 25. mpocexuve: (pro mpocexuvycev) N*BDM 1 fam 13 33 al. tat 
rec Orig be a fi giz k boh*™ (sah adorans) 

This is against all other uncials and W for mpocexuyncev including boh. 
(At xv. 31 B has edofacav with most, but NL min® and Latin huve 

edo£afov. I mention it because k* not content with clarifica- 
bant actually has clarijficant.) 
xv. 36. ediSou (pro cdaxer) NBD 1 fam 13 33 157 892 d Chr Thdor™r schol 

This against the other Greeks, all other Latins and versions. Why 
should the ‘“ Antioch” revision have constantly cancelled the historic 
imperfect? ‘Jar more likely that NB made the changes. A scholion 
is always a dangerous adherent for them, as here. We would surely 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 43 


find a trace of dabat in a or e or & if legitimate. This remark is the 
more apposite because immediately afterwards at xv. 37 B alone with D 
and nearly all Latins has an important change of order which is clearly 
influenced by the Latin. (ed:dou xv. 36, Sod'*** only new witness, but also 
Sod txt). 
Matt. 
xvii. 20. o Se reyes (pro o S$ eerev) NBD 1 fam 18 83 it syr et Sod 
tzt contra C rell gr ct af g2n q eopt. 
xviii. 25. exer (pro exyev) Not content here with every and habebat of 
all Latins, B with only Sod 1 56 58 124 Sod Orig 1/2 
makes a deliberate change to the present. 
xix. 21. reyes (pro edn) B Sod and fam 13 only of Greeks, with latz. 
xxi. 18. This is a very important place (following xxi. 1/12 where the 
synoptic influences are all at work). NBL 124 [contra fam] 
892 with boh aeth*™ Orig 2/4 and Hus (and only these + Sod") 
read arovesre, making an historic present of it, “‘ but ye make it 
a den of thieves.” 604 avoids it and against it are the mass 
including DW with eromoare as Basil (and St. Luke), and 
1 Justin Orig 2/4 merounxate (as St. Mark) and as latt “‘fecistis” 
with sah arm and Ireni™, But Soden txt prints rocerte. 

Now the reason for the change by Orig 2/4 and Hus with boh aeth 
and only NBL 124 892 to zovecre appears most subtle. It would make 
three various readings in Matt. Mark and Luke instead of two (= one, 
because aorist = perfect). In Jeremiah vii. 11 no verb is used, the verb 
appearing in verse10. Thus10 fiz: ro un Troe wavra ta Bder. TavTa COn- 
tinuing (11) zy orndAatwy AnoTwY, 80 that, as ‘To wy Tovey” is used, there 
seemed liberty here in Alexandria to employ the favorite historic present. 

xxi. 43. Observe a place emphasising the historic present [which 
here stands unchanged by all} for after dca rovro Aeyw vy 
NB Sod 28 64 118-209 243 2Pe 604 892 Sadi" 1 Husts septem 
with Arnob omit or. Here boh sah [except boh™] retain 
the usual introductory xe, as also syr and Jat, This matter 
is omitted in Tisch N.T., but supplied in ‘Hmendanda.’ 

NorE.—I dare not extend this essay to cover peculiarities of other Mss. 
Yet note that the historic present is favoured by L alone even when the 
others do not use it, e.g. xxii. 4 amootedker pro ameoterev Li only, 
although leaving aecteXev in ver 8 [Iren vers 3 “et mittenti”; Hil. 
ver 4 “qui vero iterum cum preceptorum conditione mittuntur’]. L of 
course is close to the “family ’’ NB, and observe soon after that L Orig 
Iren™ are alone in omitting avrov at xxii. 6, so that the text is “old” 
enough for azooreAXex in ver 4 to attract attention. Origen, as I have 
said before, is no fair representative of any pure text, for hereabouis he 
goes jumping about in his preferences, using aveAev at xxii. 7 (and 
deliberately, for he repeats ava:pover [observe the tense] soon after) with 
fam 1 22 against arwrecey of NB rell. Again, ver 8 he omits eotuw 
with Chr Dam and A only and Sod", 


44 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


I may also call attention to the use by & alone at xxvi. 21 of Acyer 
for evrev of our Lord’s opening speech at the last supper. 

And as bearing on the freedom with which such matters were handled 
in the time of Tatian, we notice that when quoting St. John i. 5 (contra 
Graecos) instead of saying «al % oxotla avto ov xaténaBev, Tatian 
8ay8: Kal todTO dati dpa Td elpnuevoy* } cxoTia TO has ov KaTANapPBaveL. 

Next we will consider Harmonistic Readings, and finally General 
Improvement. 


Harmonistic Omissions. 
Matt. : 
xx. 16. The final clause woAAot yap etou KAnTOL odAvyou Se ExdeKTOL 18 


removed by NBLZ 36 892 sah boh (some aeth mss, not 
Walton), but only by these, as being an importation from 
xxii. 14, But Orig>* witnesses for it at this place (besides 
thrice at xxii. 14). The Latins are a unit with all the Syriacs 
(both cu and sim being extant here at xx. 16) for the clause, 
not even ¢ or f or r, joining what I must regard only as an 
“Egyptian” conspiracy, and so I enter this also under 
“Coptic.” It is not a question, I am sure, of the coptics 
sharing an underlying text of NBLZ, for D is against them 
and W and all the rest, nor do the sympathising cursives join 
NB, not even 33, which here keeps with its great friend 
Origen. Here then our xIx century restoration did not give 
us even Origen’s Greek Testament, and Hort accuses him 
e stlentio of having failed to report the “ shorter” text here. 
But Hort had doubts, for he puts the disputed clause in the 
margin. Not so Soden, who simply excludes (with > 4“ #), 

A light is thrown on the proceeding (but we do not observe these 
things contextually as we should) for at the beginning of the next verse 
B and 1 alone of Gks, with sAH BOH and Orig (only 2/3), write pedrAwv 
Se avaBawvew for cat avaBawov against % and the rest. Thus if the 
text were basic in xx. 16 jin for the “ non-interpolation,” why should N 
desert B here? It must be because B was following sah. 

Again (same verse xx. 17) tous dwodexa (—pa0nras) is read by NLZ 
and D 1 892 with boh, but sah joins B in writing tous Swdexa pabntas 
(+avtov sah 1/2), so that sah and B are very close here. As to an 
underlying text, it is NS (or syr cu sin tous dwdexa avtov) which preserve 
it, for Orig (quater) goes with N against B here. Besides N gives us the 
syr base in the next verse xx. 18 evs Gavatov with boh?! pers for ev Oavarw 
(which B aeth omit). 

xxii. 80, —rTov Geou BD fam 1 and all latt vett (but fi gio 2 syr cu sin 
sah arm and Orig, but probably because of Mark xii. 25. 

xxili. 38. —epnuos fin. Only BL ff, syr 8 boh (some) and sah 3/4. The 

group clearly belongs together, except perhaps syr 8. Origen 

opposes (except Orig™® semel) and Clem arm aeth Eus Cyr 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 45 

oe Iren™ Cypr have it. What is this but a harmonistic 
“shorter”? text based on the omission in Luke (xiii. 35)? 

Many add epnyos in Luke, but there it would seem that the 

evidence for the “shorter text” is ‘‘overwhelming.” Soden 

does not adduce a single new witness for omission in Matthew. 


Harmonistic Additions. 


vi. 22. +oou (post ofOaruos prim.) B 372 it?! vg’® aeth Orig ex 
Lue xi. 84 against & and the rest. 
vill. 9. +raccopevos (post expe vo e€ovorav) NB 4238 273 372 421 
q** (observe the extraordinary comment these six utterly diverse 
cursives offer on the situation, for it is not fam 1 or fam 13 
or even 22 or 28, still less 157 or 33 or 892, which add with 
NB; such a point is quite lost by Soden who neglects the 
cursives previously reported, naming only 273 372) boh (sah) 
latt multi Chr (semel!), against all the rest ; comes from Luke 
vii. 8. (The excuse for the Latin [but f ff, 1 vgg" Hier 
and some others do not add] is that the Latin swb potestate 
is rather bare without the addition of constitutes.) 
xv. 38. +s (ante tetpaxicyduor) B (SN) Sod 1 fam 13 22 33 157 
Sod?*° ff, (sah) arm aeth (ex Mare viii. 9) Sod outdoes W-H 
(marg) adding txt outright. 

N seems to have been perplexed, for he and doh only omit in Mark, 
while in Matthew he has a change of order alone where he adds [and 
Tisch neglects to accept his witness there by error]. 

xxiv. 86. +ovde 0 vos N*etP BD 13-124 28 86 Sod™™™" aeth arm 
it” syr hier [non sin pesh | 

This must come from Mark xiii. 32 where practically all have it. 
I do not wish to discuss this as it borders on another province of criticism, 
merely pointing out that NB on occasion can add (when it suits them) 
as well as omit. May I ask why other authorities “omit” here in 
Matthew while retaining in Mark ? 

The O.L. here is very closely related to the Diatess which quotes 
from Mark xiii. 32, beginning a new paragraph at § xlii. 82 and running 
Mark xiii. 32/37 straight on. 


Harmonistic Changes. 
Matt. 


x. 13. See under “‘ Improvement.” 
xiv. 5. ewes (pro ort) B alone with 604 (ewady NM) Cf. xxi. 46 
for the parallel under consideration. 

xvi. 20. everiunoey B*D W-H“' de syr cu against the rest and Orig 
(ex Marc et Luc). Soden adduces no new witnesses and excludes. 

xviii. 6. (improvement) wepse tov tpayndov only NBLZ=M 28 157 y* 
Sod?" [non tat] Orig 1/2 Bas Cyr (= Marc ix. 42, Lue xvii. 2). 

The Latins here (even ¢) in Matt have in (against circa Mark, 


46 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Luke) with most Greeks including 1 13 22 Orig 1/2, while 
only DU d have em. 

Orig 1/2 is exceedingly suspicious, and why should zrepe be 
changed if original ? 


Matt. 
xix. 24. tpnuatos N*B Orig 1/3 (Orig 1/3 rpvparvas cum plur, 
Orig 1/3 tpumns) 
Mark 
x. 25. tenuatos N* sol (Rell tpupadias et BY; al. rpvirnpuaros) 


Luk 
xviii. 25. tpnuatos NBD 49 (rpvrnuatos LR 157 pauc, rpupadias plur) 


Thus N is the only one who did not get tired of turning his pages 
backward and forward and who is consistent throughout. 

(Clem, like Orig, varies: Sua rns Tpupadsas THs Bed., Sia tpnuatos padisos, 
Sia Tpurnpatos Ber., and fourthly simply d:a Bedovns.) 

This is a place where we must call in outside assistance to settle a 
textual difficulty, and the matter appears quite simple. 

St. Matthew doubtless wrote 8a rpurnpatos padisos, 

St. Mark 4 » Ova (THs) Tpuparsas (Ts) padidos, 

St. Luke 45 » a Tpnuatos Berovns. 

We find NB changing St. Matthew’s tpuvrnuatos to St. Luke’s 
tpnpatos, but retaining St. Matthew’s pagudos. We find N changing 
St. Mark’s tpuyyadsas to St. Luke’s tpyyaros, while retaining the padgidos 
belonging jointly to St. Matthew and St. Mark, which however fam 13 
changes to Bedovns in Mark, as rudely Clem, who mixes up the passages. 

Then we find that while NBD give us correctly tpnuaros BeXovns in 
St. Luke, the others harmonise there by writing, incorrectly, tpurnparos 
of Matthew or tpvypadsas of Mark, and many pagidos for Bedovns. 

I say ‘incorrectly’ because the wording d:a tpnuatos Bedovns 
harmonises so beautifully with other medical diction of St. Luke that it 
is hardly possible to challenge the reading of NBD(L) here. I quote from 
Dr. Hobart, ‘ Medical Language of St. Luke,’ Dublin 1882, p. 60: “‘ The 
words used by St. Luke are those which a medical man would naturally 
employ, for Beddvn was the surgical needle, and tphpa the great medical 
word for a perforation of any kind. But still farther, we meet with 
the same expression in Galen: @oatrws 8 Kal drt paypa tod SvatpHparos 
Tis Beddvns Sinpnuévov Evena tod cuvaryew GrAndo ros Ta popta TO 
Siaterunpévov copatos. And to express the puncture made by the needle: 
Sia Tov Kara tTHv BedOvnv Tejyatos. Tpfqua, peculiar to St. Luke, in 
medical language was applied to all perforations in the body, e.g. in 
the ears, nostrils, vertebrae, the sockets of the teeth, &c.’’ Dr. Hobart 
adds seventeen other quotations from Hippocrates and Galen illustrating 
this. 

The question thus seems very simple and reduces itself to the fact 
that NS harmonised all three passages by employing St. Luke’s tpyjyaros 





¢ The reading of B* is uncertain, but not rpyparos. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 47 


everywhere, that B did this in Matthew but not in Mark, while the 

others, who correctly report Matthew and Mark, go wrong in Luke and 

harmonise wrongly there to Mark’s tpuyadias or Matthew's tpurnpatos, 

the matter being self-evident by their employ of padidos instead of 

Berovns in Luke. 

vee 17. For xa avaBawav B says pearov Se avaBavev. B is 
supported by 1 [non fam] sah boh syr pesh pers and Orig 2/3, 
but it seems a clear reflection of Mark x. 32 (whence the 
diatessaron draws) “noav be ev ty odo avaBawvorres es 
lepocodvya.”” I place this here and not under “Coptic,” but 
a glance under ‘‘ Coptic” will show that at xx. 8, 16, 34 
there is an Egyptian conspiracy involving B in the four 
places, including xx. 17, so close and careful as to reveal B 
and coptic as editors, and not as neutrals. 

Just so NX +min* exhibits the process on its side at xx. 24 by writing 
npEavto ayavaxrew with Mark (x. 41 [the diatess § xxxi. opens with the 
account from Mark x. 41/44]) instead of nyavaxrncav. And if we look 
beyond to xxii. 40 we find ~odos by N} alone is the way of the diatessaron 
with all the syriacs and sah boh?!; so that coptic is in sympathy here too. 

Xxi. 2. xatevavts (pro arevavtt) NBCDLZ® 892 al” Orig 1/2 Eus 
1/2 borrowing from Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30 where carevaytt 
stands by all. (See under “ Synonyms.”’) 

7. ew avtwv (primo loco) NBDLZ® 33 69 892* Sod™ Origrs 
(against evravw avrwy of all the rest) 

This seems to be merely a reflection of Mark xi. 7 em avrov and 
Luke xix. 35 ewe tov wwdov. 

Tisch forgets to say that the rest of the 13 family omit the preposition 
altogether and write avtw. 

xxi. 12. —rov Qeou (cf Mare xi. 15 Luc xix. 45) See under “ Coptic” 
and beyond under “‘ Improvement.” 

25. ev eavtots (pro wap eavrows) BULM?Z 157 372 892 min® (copt) 
Cyr. This seems merely a “nicety” of harmony to Matt. xvi. 
7 and 8 where ev eavrows is used on both occasions without 
fluctuation among mss. Why then should “ Antioch ” 
change at xxi. 25 to map cavtos? What reason would 
there be? 
xxli. 39. devtepa (~Se) NB 4 157 Sod? only (against the versions 
and sah boh pl) with sah™ boh®'*®™ comes from Mark xii. 31 
“ deuvtepa avtn.”” Observe that B improvises (alone) in Matthew 
by substituting ojovws for opova avtn. 
XXVii. 29. trepieOnxay B18l. ef Mare xv. 17 wepiriOcacw. 
33. els Tov Toroy Tov Be cf Luc xxiii. 33 exactly. 

Here is harmony in full blast in this “neutral” text. Consult in 

the same verse 83 —deyouevov by N alone (= Marc xv. 22) and the 


48 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


picture is complete as to both NS and B harmonising in exactly the 
place where they should be most careful not to do so if they expect our 
confidence elsewhere. 

{I would call attention to xxvii. 35 without any emphasis because 
the reading in the photographic edition of B cannot be determined. No 
mention of it is made in Tischendorf’s notes, but in Gregory’s Emen- 
danda attention is directed to B* Sveyepicay for Steyepicavro. In the 
photograph it reads AlemepicA™ with a very small to which was 
perhaps added by an early corrector. In the LXX as in B’s own text 
of Ps. xxii. the reading is Sewepecavro. If Sveyeproay B* be correct we 
have an elimination of sibi after diviserunt with cf fo gio 7 72 Aug?™ and 
vg omn (exceptis BQX Cerne dimma)t and syr, but sah boh are explicit 
“among them.” In Mark xv. 24 the expression is Siapepifovrar ta 
ysaria avtov, but in Luke xxiii. 84 (where B had just been looking; see 
above as to eis Tov Tozrov -Tov) it is Stvapepsfowevor Se ta tuatia, without 
any reflexive attribute. In Jo. xix. 24 the quotation shows Sveyepicavto, 
while in verse 23 the procedure is carefully explained, involving the 
middle voice, for it is said of the soldiers «AaBov ta watia avtov Kas 
eToinoayvy TETTAaPAa Een EKATTD TTPATLWTN pEPOS, KAL TOV xiTwva. | 
Matt. 

xxvii. 46. eBoncev BL W2 33 69-124 218 604 Sod™ only as Mark xv. 34. 
All others with S and Hus Bas aveBonoey and a d ff, go h 
vgiandR (boh) exclamavit. 

ibid. eXwer eAwer B (and sah) with cdo ehor N 33 (and boh) 
seem distinctly to favour the Marcan form. Observe that 
syr differentiates between the words used in St. Matt. and 
St. Mark as do most Greeks, whereas NB alone, as usual, 
obscure the issue. Yet Hort found absolutely nothing 
“ Alexandrian ” or ‘‘ Egyptian” in codex B. Here, absolutely 
alone, it is with sah in a particular form. He abandons the 
spelling of B here for that of N, although he was glad enough 
to seize eSonce of B in the same verse against XN. The 
Revisers recognise the harmony, and go back to aveBonoev 
and Ha: Hu, but the evidence in Souter’s footnote is wrongly 
stated. 


General Improvement. 


li, 22. Baotrever tys Tovdavas (—ems) NB 892 min pauc arm Eus. 
Contra rell et it et sah o tippo ex fowaaia sed 
boh plane xe apoceAaoc eTo! Noepo efiovacs = 
NB. NB ex boh, vel boh ex NB?? (Soden follows NB.) 


+ In the quotation itself, omitted by most Greeks and d f ffi.2 gil vggl5t, sidt is 
found in a bc gz h q ra (mut r) vgg, but omitted by two vulgates™ 0. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 49 


The answer seems given in this same verse where NBC*W alone 
change the order of npwdou tov marpos avtov of all anD sah boh to tov 
TaTpos avtov npwoov. (Sod does not follow, recognising synoptic influence.) 
Had sah or boh been copying NB they might have used this order. 

v. 10. evexa Stxatoovyns (pro evexev Sx.) B solus. This is as clear 
as can be, preferring eveca before a consonant, besides being 
largely Homeric and classical. Cf Xoyou evexa “‘ dicis causa,” 
or Texvns evexa (Anth). But B repeats evexa next verse 
before ewov. [N does not join B. Soden forgets to record B.] 

Observe, however, that B leaves evexey exou alone before a vowel 
at x. 18, 89, xvi. 25, Mark viii. 35, x. 29 primo loco, Luke ix. 24, but 
alone makes it evexa exov at Mark xiii. 9. 

At Matt. xix. 29 it is N which objects to evexey tov eyov. &, with D 
and Cyr, writes evexa tov eyov, while B here remains with the rest. If 
B changes in one place and N in another we may be perfectly sure that 
it is editorial. 

At Mark x. 29 evexey rou evayyedtov is now left alone by NB reil, 
and only changed here to evexa tov evayy. by D 71 and as Tisch. says 
“casio” (a few omit the clause). At Luke xxi. 12 all evexey tov ovopatos 
except D 71 who are for evexa tov ovop. 

At Luke vi. 22 all are agreed as to evexa tov viov except inconsistent 
D who with FYPWI writes evexey tov wou, reversing his position. 

At Luke xviii. 29 NB with Sod®*" prefer ecvexev tns Bacireias (evexev 
Ts Bac. the rest, except U 71 which here desire evexa). 

At Matt. xix. 5 NBLZ Orig change evexev tovrov to evexa rovtov. 
It seems quite clear that Matthew wrote evexey throughout his Gospel. 

At Mark x. 7 evexev rovtov is left unchanged by all. 

At Luke iv. 18 ewexey eyypicev or evexev eyypioev are found. 

I am far from saying that Neve or Bseribe or even Derive made the 
changes, but their texts at some time in Egypt when in papyrus 
book form were no doubt tampered with in order to try and make the 
matter smooth. 

Outside the Gospels we find. Acts xix. 82 evexey cuvednAvbecay most, 
but evexa suvedX. NAB and four cursives; xxvi. 21 evexa Tovrwy apparently 
all; xxviii. 20 evexey yap tTys edmidos all but N*A which write ecvexev here ; 
Rom. xiv. 20 wy evexev Bpwuatos all; 2 Cor. iti. 10 evexev tys vmepRarnr. 
do&)s most and many Fathers, but ewexev rns um. S0&. by NABDEF**GP ; 
2 Cor. vii. 12 evexev ter with infinitive by most including NB, only ewexev 
EK and L (primo loco) Thdt Oec. From this it is abundantly clear that 
changes everywhere are wilful. (Sod adds a few codd. varying.) 

Matt. 

vi. 7. vroxpitat Bj and syr cu [non syr sin pesh diatess | 
eOvixot all the rest 

The verse runs : “ zrpocevyopevor Se pn Battodoynonte warep ot cOviKos * 
doxovert yap ott ev TH TOAVAOYLA auTwY eLoaxovOnoovTaL.” 

B 


50 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Clearly vroxpitas is an “‘ improvement,” being set up as a better 
antithesis to BatroAoynontre than e@vixot would seem to be. ‘There is 
nothing “neutral” about this, and Origen is against it. Mirabile dictu 
W-H do not follow B here. How can Hort then account for what he 
wrote (p. 237) about the “simple and inartificial character” of ‘the 
few remaining individualisms of B,” “happily guiltless of ingenuity or 
other untimely activity of the brain ” ? 

See Hort vol. ii. ‘Select Rdgs.’ p. 10 on Matt. vii. 138 “Or, as we 
rather suspect, as one of those rare rdgs. in which the true text has been 
preserved by N without extant support, owing to the exceptional intrusion 
of a late element into B (of which some examples occur further on in this 
Gospel).” But B is full of these intrusions and not only in Matthew! 


Matt. 
xi. 15. —axovew BD 32174 604 dk syr sin (0 eywy wra [ axovew | axoverw) 


xii. 9. —axovey NBL a e ff, k syr sin (0 exwv wra [axovew] axovetw) 
Here it is clearly seen that B #& and syr sin are the consistent ones 
in omitting. It might be thought basically “neutral” (= shorter text) 
but that there would be no reason to add axovew as all the rest do 
including copt. 

xiii. 48. —axovesy N*B Sod 604 a b e k vg" [non D d syr sin T] 
xii. 48. tw AeyovTs (pro Tw ev7rovTt) NBDZI* 7 33 892 Host alig. 
Following ewrev to avoid tautology. See similar case at 

Luke ix. 21. (Soden follows Hort here in Matthew.) 

Other instances of this can be adduced, as at Matt. xxvi. 26. For 
evyapiotnoas of most (and W 28) evroynoas is substituted by text recept 
with NBDLCGZ mina for the blessing of the bread. This appears 
very like an effort to vary the evyapiornoas occurring again in the 
following verse 27 of the cup. For note that in St. Paul’s account in 
1 Cor. xi. 24/25 the expression is evyapiornoas and that of the BREAD. 

24/25. ckaBev aptov Kas evyaptotnaoas exdace Kat eve (NaBeTE 

ayete) TOUTO “ov EGTL TO Twa TO UTEP VwY (KAwWpEVOY) TOVTO 
TTOLELTE ELS THY ELNV AVALVYHCW. WTAVUTWS Kal TO TOTHpPLOV. eee 

Thus evyapiorncas is tied to the bread, and weavrws implies evyap:- 
atnoas de novo as to the cup. . 

Whichever way we turn the NB grouping seems to be convicted of 
an endeavour to improve; in this case however the textus receptus is 
involved as well. Here Griesbach and Scholz I believe rightly oppose 
it. For such repetition is not distasteful to the Semitic mind. (See 
beyond on Matt. xix. 4.) But Soden reproduces evyapiotnoas in Matt. 


Matt. 

xiii. 36. Siacagpyooy (pro Ppacor) N*B (Orig semel) syr, but no 
cursives. Sod adds j and °° of uncials, of fam ¢* four cursives, and prints 
Stacadyoor in his text. Of the five next, four are omissions : 


+ But syr sin has wacaxls for wasazeal of syr cu. Syr cu has axovew both at 
xi. 15 and xiii. 9. 


BIN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 51 
Matt. 

a 45. ewrropw ( pro avOpwrw ewropw) N*BI50 59 Sod"? Ath Cyr 1/2 
Chrys Ambr [Habent Orig Cypr gr plur syrr diatess arab latt] 
om ETrop@ vg diatess 

The two words occupy one line in D d, and Cyr 1/2 is significant, 
while Orig and Cypr flatly contradict NB [Tert is silent]. 

The coptic is interesting, for unlike Gr-syr-lat order: avOp. epropw 
they say europe avOpwmre a “ merchant-man”’ as we would say in English. 

&Vi. 18. Tuva (ue) Aeyovety o1 avOpwrot evvat (Tov) viov Tov avov 
quem (me) dicunt homines esse filium hominis. 

This ye is omitted by NB 604 Sod*” [no other Greeks] syr hier copt 
aeth only c of O.L. and some vgg coda (8) against Hier specifically. 

He isincluded by syrr it pl and Iven and all other Greeks. Clearly this 
omission is not “shorter” text, but constructional improvement, There 
could not be a clearer case where the Syriacs are specific with the Latin, 
and the Coptic only support NB as a distinctly Egyptian group joined 
by aeth and c also clearly of Egyptian provenance, yet Soden excludes. 

[ X’s graeco-latin tendency is seen clearly in the neighbourhovd 
Xvi. 27 ra epya for tnv mpakw with d [contra D® rnv rpakw] opera sua 
and other Latins and copé. 

No doubt the origin of the plural is due to an old unpointed syriac 
preceding the Latins which could be read either way. Hence as Latins 
and Greeks (except N*EF min*4) divide squarely here, the Latins did 


not get it from the Greeks but from the Syriac. ] 
Matt. 
xxl. 12. “Kas econdOev a ta ets To Lepov Tov Geav.” 


But NBL 13 33 73 604 892 Sod sah bok acth b Meth Chr Hil and 
Origen 2/5 omit tov Geov. On the supposition of the ‘“ shorter” text 
of course W-H follow suit with the omission. But is it not a gross 
mistake? Who would put in rov Oeou? ‘And Jesus went into the 
Temple” is quite sufficient. If the original writer did not have rov Geouv 
why should any add? The plain fact remains that Origen being on both 
sides gives away the change as an arbitrary excision, for the words 
appeared redundant. I cannot allow that the addition was made by 
scribes, but claim that NBL omitted as a redundancy. This is one of 
the few places treated by W-H. See their note in vol. ii. (‘Select Read- 
ings’) p.15. What they mean by “overwhelming” t evidence for omission 
I fail to see, “ overwhelming” meaning only three uncials (closely 
related), a pitiful handful of cursives, the arm (all mss?) aeth, and coptic, 





t They write: “The absence of rov deov from Me xi. 15 Le xix. 45 (ef Jo. ii. 14) at 
all events cannot weigh against the overwhelming documentary authority for omission.” 
But the omission is doubtless traceable to Origen, who in his commentary on John 
(Book x. § 15) cites the three Gospel accounts, leaving out rov Geov in Matthew, as in 
Mark and Luke where the words are really absent. Elsewhere when quoting Matthew 
Origen has them. Soden holds rov @eov against NBL and his ™, although he has been 
religiously following them in a host of other things! Why are they right elsewhere if 
wrong here? 

E 2 


52 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


with Origen against them in proportion of 3 to 5 on the side of all other 
Gk documents and all Latins but 6, and all syrr, while syr cu actually 
doubles it, reading “‘ And Jesus entered the temple of God and put forth 
from the temple of God.” 

The calling of NBL copt aeth “ overwhelming” is undignified. It 
represents one single tradition. See under “Coptic” for probable 
harmonistic reasons for the omission. Soden does not omit. 
cri 6. wept Tov tTpayndov (pro emt or es Tov Tp.) NBLZZNM 28 157 

237 253 258 y* al. pauc. Orig (SEMEL) Bas Cyr bis 
This clearly tells the tale. Orig only once, Cyril twice. The Latins 
oppose and the Syriac, but NB thought “about his neck’ was better. 
Why are 604 and 892 absent? The coptic does not agree with NB here. 
Schaaf and Gwilliam translate ‘‘ad collum” for the same syr expression. 
Only Burkitt says “about his neck ’”’ for the same syr preposition. It is 
clearly only a matter of taste, and in view of the circumlocutory nature 
of syriac prepositions (Schaaf p. 114 “circum, circa, ad, juxta, prope”’) it 
seems evident that NB are only “improving.” How could zeps have 
dropped out of the rest if basic? Soden refuses this “‘ nicety.” 

xVili. 15. cay Se apaptnon (—eus oe) 0 adeAdos cov This is a radical 
and important change committed by NB 1 22 234* sah Orig 
Cyr Bases and clearly wrong. When D parts company 
with NB and goes with the mass and when that mass includes 
all the Latins and Syrr we may be sure NB with or without 
Origen are striving for improvement. We cannot consider 
a shorter text per se. We must investigate how each of these 
changes came about. Boh?! here oppose sah with arm aeth Chr 
Lucif Hil ete. who are all conjoined with +928, of the Greeks 

plus Lat and Syr. W* does not omit nor 604 nor 892. 

(A reference to Luke xvii. 3 where NB Sod again omit with AL 
fam 1 42 254 892 but also lat syr copt Clem Dam (Tert) shows that 
the omission in Matt. was probably influenced by their Lucan text.) 

This is immediately followed by an addition which I do not believe 
is original but due to the “‘ version tradition.” 

Matt. xviii. 19 for vzev of most Gks NBDL 892 substitute e€ vuwy 
with syrr [this seems to be opposed by a much older authority namely 
Ignatius®bes 4], 


aviv 4, 0 KTLCaS am apyns apoey Kat Ondv errotncey avTovs. B 1 22 


$0 33 124 604 Sod! & Sod boh sah Orig™* Tit Bostr Method 
r Ath Clem’°™ use xticas for the more Semitic sroimeas of all 
the rest. 


I ask what can be more clearly an endeavour to improve? Tt avoids 
the tautology involved and seems clearly borrowed from Mark x. 6 “ azo 
Se apyns KTLTEws apoey Kat Ondy eroincer avTovs.” 

The double use of zovew in Matthew is not abhorrent to the Latins, 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 53 


and the Syriacs use the same word rn twice. Nor was it abhorrent 
to the translators of the L:XX, who render Gen. i. 27: 

Kal ETTOLNCTEV O Oeos TOV avOpwrov " KA €LKOVA Geov ETOLNGTEV AVTOV: 
apoev kat Ondru erounoev avTous. 

(Hebrew is yivra X12" bara x13 bara x73.) 

In the small support accorded to B note that 124 opposes the 
family traditions of fam 13 which do not agree, and 1 opposes 118-209. 
Nothing can be clearer that «rioas is editorial. 

Similarly in the same chapter verse 18 B 13-124-346-556 write en 
for evrev opposing all the rest and 69. Can we really suppose the later 
edn to be “neutral” opposing all other documents ? 

Note that in the answer of the young man at Mark x. 20 the record 
of NB(C)A is edn, and returning to Matt. xix. 18 note that at the 
beginning instead of Aeyes avTw movas, NL substitute roas Pnocv, and 
B 18 edn avrw woas, all apparently in the nature of corrections, yet not 
in agreement with each other. 

Two verses lower Matt. xix. 20 we find Origen (as well as aA. 
opposing the correction of NBDI 1 22 604 of edvaaka for epurataym 
while edvaata is read in Mark x. 20 by Orig Clem DA and 28 [not 28 in 
Matthew] and there in Mark opposed by NBCNWX. In Luke xviii. 21 
most read edvaataunv but NABL fam 1 efvraka. It would seem as if 
in both Matthew and Mark NB take the wrong line. 

xxiv. 16. devyerwoav e+s ta opp» BDA 892 min alig Patr et latt for 
ob. ert ta opn. It is much more likely that ew: should 
be changed to.es, than es to ert. The idea being in the 
minds of the grammarians that it was a flight To (‘‘in 
montes’’ Origi™® Ireni* Cypr Aug Hier r vgg) although 
most Old Latins retain the abl. in montibus (with only vg’), 
whereas ert ta opy is the more difficult and the most likely, 
signifying flight ¢o the mountains and upon them when there. 

As to Luke xxi. 21 all Gks (but two) have es there. Hence 
the excuse to harmonise in Matthew is greedily availed of by B. 
I can see no other outlet. I will not admit that nearly all other 
Greeks substitute a more difficult em: in Matthew. 


et Improvement (Addition). 
att. 
xxvi. 44 fin. Tov avtov Aoyov exmov +7radiv, This wad is added by 


NBL Sod” 124 (against the family) t @ and boh [non sah]. 
There is no particular reason for this (syr sin ‘‘and again 
thus he spake”’; arm ‘‘and again the same word he said’’) unless 
erroneously incorporated from the wadw occurring above 
“caw arelwv mpoonv&éato,” for “Tov avtov Aoyov evrov”’ is 





t Soden misquotes his «257 (Scrivener ‘a’ Adv. Saer.) 


54 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


‘shorter’ text theory, and an abominable redundancy. No 
cursives but 124 seem to join, and as to a it occasionally 
does this kind of thing, e.g. John iii. 4 homo +wt nos.t Soden 
places this second sraduw in his text. 
Given the ordinary copying of mss, which was faithful enough 
in the main, how could zadw be dropped by all the rest? 


Removing redundancy. 
Matt. 


xi. 25. ott exputpas tavta aro copav kat ovveror NBD 12 
Clem>™ (sed Clemr™ libere) Sod*xt non mss 
All others have amexpupas..amo with Iren® Hus Orig. 

This seems clearly to savour of the removal of redundant ar from 
the verb. Alone it might not seem so, but in connection with the other 
points in the indictment it would seem to hold good. 

(The Latins can yield nothing of interest here; sah seems to 
faxour NBD “thou hiddest these for,” but boh is “from.” Coming 

close on syriac influence in verse 23 (see elsewhere) expuyas 
ay trace to this.) 

See in St. Luke as to simple and compound verbs. 


Further, consider the following improvement : 


vi. 5. eas otay mpocevynobe ovn eceabe ws or uroxpitas Nt BZ 1 22 
372 892 Sod*”® a b (c h nolite esse) f ffi go 5 [contra As] 
l vg goth sah boh aeth syr hier arm Orig Chr Aug 
Sodtxt 
Kal oTaY Tpocevyn OVK Eon woTrEp oO vIoKpitat DW rell syr 
cu d k gq [om ver. sin] diatess (hiant ¢ ffz mr 12) 





¢ In this connection it may be interesting to connect a@ with Ber, which can be done 
in several places. But they touch in quite a peculiar matter of order, which deserves 
notice, at Luke viii. 23. For 

kat xareBy = athayy avepov ets Tv Aum of alll Gks 
| et descendit procella venti in stagnum of Latins 
B alone has «, xare8n dada evs THv AtpyNny avepov 
and a et descenditturbo in stagnum venti } 

Wordsworth does not notice this order in a, although quoting G 6 e 1 g for omission of 
in stagnum (add for omission ff ss in Tisch confirmed by Buchanan). The point I want 
to bring out is that B is therefore in no way “ neutral” or “pre-syrian”” here. He goes 
with a document generally called Western or Huropean or Italian (although a is really 
graeco-syriac-latin) and does so in a place where the omission by other Latins shows 
how the change of order probably took place owing to some confusion here. Hence 
Bain combination once more disproves “ neutrality ” for B and classes him with our 
other documents as a mixture. I will emphasise the point further from a passage very 
close by, viz. Luke viii. 29. Instead of nAavvero uo rou Samovoy ets Tas epnyovs, B supported 
only by = (against NS and all the rest) allows himself to substitute amo for vo, which must 
equate LATIN use of a@ daemonio for agency as sometimes elsewhere. 

t N* leaves out ovx eceoGe by mistake. # in correcting gives cai orav rpovevyn 
ovux eve Oe (showing he knew both readings) and Ne has to set the matter straight. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, 55 


This is absolutely and clearly an improvement by a small coterie 
as above. In verse 8 it runs cov Se rosovros eXenpoovvny so that at first 
sight we might think that the majority had corrected the plural in 
ver. § to accord with this singular in ver. 3, but why then, in the first 
place, allow the plural 0 varoxpera: to stand in ver. 5? If Antioch had 
done the revising here they might have changed the hypocrites to 
‘‘a hypocrite” or ‘the hypocrite,” but then they would have had to 
alter the whole of the rest of the verse. In the second place it is 
quite clear that NBZ did the revising (the inevitable Origen joins 
them) in order to avoid a singular comparison with a plural following. 
In the third place the change is opposed by DW dk t q and syr cu pesh 
diatess definitely [sin, the cautious, omits the verse]. For some reason 
Tisch misstates the evidence, only giving g on the side of D d, while he 
gives «7! on the other side. But if ever there was a place where we 
must balance correctly this is one. We now see that i¢”' is wrong, fordk gq 
witness for the side of D d, and 8 opposing A®™ shows it was the later 
latin witness which caused this. Sod cannot even produce *° for this. 

One word more. Origen, who approves the course of NBZ, 
nevertheless writes wo7ep for ws (of NBDZ 33), showing that while 
they were about it NBZ took the opportunity to make this other change, 
for they prefer ws; to @o7ep on a good many other occasions. 

We might refer to Luke xxii. 31/32 for further illustration: Zipev 
Sipev ideb 6 catavas éEntncato twas Tod cundoca ws Tov GiTov’ eyo Sé 
edenOnv wept cov iva pr ékdtrn H wists cov. 

Here c seeing the difficulty writes ad cernendum without vpdas, but 
Tertullian ‘‘ wtt cerneret vos,” and Cyprian “ wt vos veraret.” 

Another such transition (which Bornemann admits is “intentional ’’) 
occurs at Luke v. 4 and is highly instructive, for again another Evangelist 
is reproducing our Lord’s own words: os 8€ ératcato Aadoy elev mpos 
Tov Lipwva: éwavayaye eis TO BdOos, Kal yaddoate Ta Sixtva tpaw 
eis dypav. We cover this transition in English by saying ‘‘ Launch out 
[‘ put out,’ R.V.] into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught,” but 
the Latins cannot cover it, and they say ‘“‘ Duc (or adduc) in altum, et 
laxate....’’t 

St. Paul is not averse to the method. Observe 2 Cor. xi. 6 “‘ei 6é 
kal (duitns TO AOyo, GAN ov TH yvwoer’ GAN’ ev rravTl harepwHéyTes (or 
havepwocavtes) év macw eis tas.” This is not quite so obvious, as éyw 





+ Horner simply follows Tischendorf and only quotes q, so that he has failed to 
clear the matter. & has “et cum adoras non erit sicut hypocritae.” Unfortunately 
e ff, are wanting and m rr, If we refuse dk syr cw (conjoined here) a heavy vote 
in the proceedings what is the use of talking of them elsewhere as primary witnesses ? 
The public cannot judge intelligently when the evidence of these witnesses is obliterated 
from carelessness. 

+ Wiclif is however true, and says “ Lede thow into depthe, and slake your nettis to 
take fisch.”’ 


56 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


with infinite reserve (as is usual with St. Paul) is suppressed. In our 

English version on the other hand we have to bring it into pro- 

minence: “But though I be rude in speech yet not in knowledge 

{emphatically R.V. ‘yet am I not in knowledge’] but we have been 

thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.” (R.V. varies this 

diction.) 

Another beautiful example is forthcoming in St. Paul’s writings, 
which although a little long Iam tempted to reproduce here and put 
it on record in this connection. I refer to Rom. xii. 16-20. 

Ver 16 is plural : 16 abré eis ddAHAOUS foovodvTes* ply TA INrAA HpovobvTes, 
GNA Tois TaTreLvois cvvaTraryopevos’ wn yiver Oe Hpdviportrap éavTots. 

Follows a kind of singular idea holding the plural : 

Ver 17, 18, 19. undevl waxdy dvtl Kaxod drodiovtes* mpovoovpevot Kara 
évérriov Tdvtav avOpoTrav’ ei Suvatov, TO e& tuadv, weTa TdvT@Vv 
avOpdrrav eipnvetoytes* pr Eavtods éxduxobytes, dyarntol, GAAd 
Sore tomov TH Spy (yéypaTTas yap ‘“‘’Eyot éxdixnows, éyw 
dvtaTrobacw, Neyer KUpLos.’’) 

Now follows immediately the singular, only separated by the 
parenthetical quotation above : 

Ver 20. "Edy odv (vel adrAad édv) rewd 6 éxOpds cov, Worle avTov' 

. dav Sid, worele adtov’ todto yap wordy, avOpaxas mupos 

owpevoets eri Thy Keparyy avrod. 

The interesting part is that he holds this singular in ver. 21 instead 
of summing up with the plural: 

PN ViKw bd TOU KaKod, GAG vira ev TO ayaO@ Td KaKdv. 

This again is lost in our English, for we translate : 

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,” 
which might be “Be thou... ” or “‘ Be ye...” 

Now to return to Matt. vi. 5 and Luke v. 4. Of course there are 
no cross references between these two verses, yet it is instructive to note 
a point which occars here. There are no variations among Mss in 
Luke v. 4 except as to ws de or ore (D dae) at the beginning, but at the 
end fam 1 and 22 Sod’ omit ets aypav. Now these (fam 1 and 22 Sod1"*) 
are the very Mss which alone support NBZ in Matt. vi.5. I may say here 
that we are very much in need of a new collation of Evan 22. We do not 
know, to this day, whether “colb’”’ or “‘colb unus”’ of Wetstein’s Colbert 
Group means 22 or another. Consult Matt. vi. 18 a very little way 
farther on, xpuvdaww (for xpurtw) bis is found only in NB(D) 1 [against 
118-209 this time] and 22 372 Sod”, showing they are simply descendants 
of the same family. [872 (=Sod**) joins here, absolutely of B family, not 
recorded above.] Soden cpupaiw. 

xpugazos is more classical (or poetic, Pindar Aesch Soph ; Xen Plato 
use both) than xpura, but only occurs in the N.T. as xpudy Eph. v. 12. 

But, I may be told, do you mean to put aside NBZ Orig supported 
by sah boh goth it® Aug? And I say yes, because before the benevolent 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 57 


reader will have finished perusing these pages he will find that NBZ 
Orig sah boh represent but one text recension, and it® Awg no doubt are 
turning a difficulty ¢ as well, seeing that they are not supported by d k 
(unfortunately ff is wanting here in the early part of Matthew). 
Adhesion of the gothic here to NBZ is unusual and might be 
considered a balancing factor, but for the fact that it is abandoning its 
usual adherence to the other group, and therefore I consider its position 
to be suspicious also of “improvement.” As we find the syriac stand 
aloof from NBZ with d & D and all other Greeks we can see pretty 
clearly that the singular in apposition to the plural following is the 
correct reading and not the converse. 

As a matter of fact we ourselves are in the habit of using the 
same construction. We say currently ‘‘ Don’t be like the sharks down 
in the market place’ (meaning ‘‘Do not thou be like...”) Similarly 
the French say: “Ne sois pas comme les Anglais qui...” or the 
Germans: “ Sei nicht wie die Amerikaner...” £ 

Finally observe in the same chapter vi. 16 agavifovow yap to 
tpoowmov S 2449, k syr pesh pers for apavifovew yap ta TpogwmTa. 

Note also in Matt. vii. 16 pnts cvdAXeyouow amo axavOwv ctagvAny 
CEGKLMSUVWXATI al. pl arm aeth Lucif (although opposed by NB(C) 
Sam 1 22 892 latt syr goth copt with otapvaAas) may be the right reading ; 
observe LWX for oradurny and Clem (but cf. Luke vi. 44). 


Improvement (continued). 
Matt. 


vi. 8. Addition: 0 Geos o watnp vpwv N*B sah [| W-H] non Sod? xs 
0 TaTnp vawv D reli et verss sine o Oeos 

vii. 8. avouyerat (pro avowynoeta fin) Bonly (and syr cu boh Aphraat). 
Clear ‘‘improvement” to correspond with AapBave and 
euptoxet above, against Clem ® and all other Greeks, Latins 
and sah. B does it again (alone with D, which is here 
wanting) at Luke xi. 10 absolutely for the same reason. Sod 
attributes both readings to mere error (p. 908 Band I Abt. 11). 
He is indeed charitable. But W-H do not agree with him, 
printing them marg. in both places. 

ix. 28. Order: ots rovro durayat romncat only Bl gq and vg against ore 
Suvvayac in first position all others and versions (although 
varying somewhat otherwise ; see under NB in Part ID). 

x. 2. +xat ante vaxwBos NB d (contra D*) syr (contra rell gr et latt 
sah boh aeth). When XB abandon coptic sympathy there is 
always a reason, and this must have been considered an im- 
provement. Why should all the rest drop it? (-+«az Sod? ™), 








{ They are clearly wrong with B again in vi. 22 reading, “The light of the body is 
thine eye”’ (from Luke xi. 34) instead of ‘ the eye.” N here opposes B, and with f goth 
syrr sahomn bohoma and Clem Eus is certainly right. 

} See Winer, p. 778 (* Breviloquence,’ section 2 f.) comparing Kenophon (Cyr. 5, 
1. 8) opocav rats Sovdais ecye THY evOnra. AS to Luke v. 4 it is referred to on p. 725. 


58 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Matt. 


KX. 8. Oad8asos (pro NeBatos) NB 17 124 sah boh c ffi 9.1 [Non clare Sod] 

13. ef vuas (pro mpos vuas) NBW 174 (248) 372 892 Sod”™™. 

This is done to complete the idea of “pairs” in the sentence 

eipnyn vpev em’ auTny, and expnvyn upwv ef’ vas eTioTpagyTo, 

if indeed it be not borrowed from Luke x. 6 em’ avtov..ed’ 

vpas. Actually 243, instead of strengthening NB, shows this 

by adding avaxapyyre: from Luke. There is no earthly reason 

why all other documents should substitute apos for ed’ if ed’ 

were original. The Latins oppose and both coptics differen- 

tiate. Needless to say W-H fall into the trap. Soden does not. 

I wish to add that & (with C 157 Sod*° only) confirms my view 

as to “pairs” immediately afterwards, for at x. 15, not content with 7 

codopay Kat youoppwv, it adds a second yn, writing yn codopov Kas yn 

youoppov. That this is absolutely gratuitous is proved by the abstention 

of the friendly versions. 

We shall see much more later and throughout the Gospels as to 

this matter of ‘‘ pairs”’ by the Egyptian school. 


Improvement (Order). 


xi. 26. ots ovtws >evdoxia eyeveto eutrporbev cov NBW 1 33 892% 
OTL ovT@S >eyeveTo evdoxia eurrpoabev cov Rell 
The versions do not support NB here. In Luke x. 21 BC*LX& (a 
perfect family coterie, but against N as well as the rest) have also evdoxia 
eyevero and there with many Old Latins. 


Improvement “* Niceties.”’ 


xi. 29. mpavs NBC*D Sod*! Clem 1/2 Orig bis Ath 1/2 Bas 1/4 Cyr 1/2 
mpacs Rell omn et min omn vid Orig*P? Husre Ath 1/2 
Bas 3/4 Cyr 1/2 Chr; et Clem(Strom) daBere tov mpaov 
A glance at this will, I think, show Alexandrine scholarship 
preferring the rarer form. Observe how the Fathers are divided against 
themselves, with the balance in favour of zpaos. Hort says (voli. p. 549) 
“The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be laid to the 
credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria, .. .” but here, as elsewhere, 
the readings vary in different places in their writings. They were far 
from being “‘ watchful,” but they did enjoy “niceties” even if not 
consistent in the application of them. 
ix. 13 and xii. 7. Under this head may perhaps be placed «Acos (for 
edeov) by NBCD* 1 33 in both places (and again xxiii. 23). 
Note that all others oppose as well as d and Clem*** (against 
Origen). The LXX reading (of most of its mss) of eNeos 
would account for eAeos. 
For observe in this connection, and in this vicinity, Matt xii. 17/18 
wa TANpwOn To pybev Ea Hoaior (xlii. 1/4) tov mpopytov AeyovTos wou o 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 59 


TALS {LOU OV NPETIOA, 0 aryamnTos ov ov (pro eis Ov) evdoxnoev 7 apuyn pov. 
So N*B 115 244 892 ff, Husbis 1/2 against evs ov evdoxncer of all the rest 
and latt sy copt. A reference to Isaiah xlii. 1 (Septuagint) shows sapana 
0 exdexTOs pov, TpocedeEaTO avTOV 4 uy [ov. 

[D* indeed here writes ets ov for the first ov (as syr) against guem of 
d opposite, and D* has ev w for the second evs ov. | 


Matt. 


(Questionable.) 
xl. 29. apraca: (pro d:apraca) BC*WX 892 min” sah? against 
SiapTracas ND rell omn et latt (diripere) et Mare iii. 27 
“ Nicety”’: 
xii. 82. (sec loco) ov un adeOyn = BS et W-H mg. 
ov pn ageOnoetar X* 
ove abeOnoerat Net yell om 


This seems a strengthening “nicety”” on the part of B, for 
Luke xii. 10 = ove ageOnoerat, and Mark iii. 29 ove exes adeowy. 

Another ‘‘ nicety ’’ (favoured by W-H and Sod tat** °° %) occurs at: 

Xlii. 48. ta Kara aus ayyn (pro ta Kara es ayyera) NBCM**N 1 [non 118- 
209] 124 [non fam] 892 Evst 48 (notable conjunction among 
our minuscules of editorial work) Orig? Cyr>is Isid. aryryerov 
is a pure Matthaean word occurring only here and at xxv. 4 
where ev Tots ayyeioss is left alone by all. I consider ayyn, the 
non-diminutive form, to be a ‘“nicety” of Origen. The Old 
Syriac omits here at xiii. 48 saying “ the good (as) good,” but 
DW and the rest have ets ayyeva (or es Ta ayyta D). 

57. The “pair” of clauses here: “in his country and in his 
house” has given rise to a great deal of variety. 

I believe the “‘ received” text to be correct: ev tT waTpids avtou Kat 
ev TH o1xia avtov. It is read by eleven uncials and LXW®> min pl lait 
pl syrr Bas Chr and Orig 2/3, and is Semitic. BD 83 604 (al? perpauc) 
adk = ev 1m rwatpi&s (—avtov) kat ev Ty o1xva avtov making the possessive 
serve once for the two as W-H. This Origen does not agree to. NZ fam 
13 892 ff Orig 1/8 = ev ty edsca warpids Kae ev TH otKta avtov as Sod", 
L f 9, vg” omit the second clause, but L with 15 uncials including W 
has ev ty warpiés avrov. C conflates ev ty vdea matpids avTov Kat ev TH 
ouxta avtov exactly as sah (which probably gave rise to some of the 
trouble) neqFere Revit MRMeeog... 

We see Origen as usual divided against himself, yet not supporting 
BD for the “ shorter” text, which here I believe to be a mistake by BD. 

A study of such “ pairs”? conveys a gcod deal of information. Thus 
at Guke xx. 20: To “deliver him unto the power and authority of the 
Governor.” NN 157 Paris and three lectionaries write Tt) apyn xa 
efouc.a tou nyeu., eliding the second article before efovoia. I mention it 
because Tisch omits this in his notes (it is added in Gregory’s ‘Emendanda’) 
and because the Coptic nexx for «as (although it retains the article 


60 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


prefixed to the second noun) may have given rise to this. ‘‘ Pairs,” 
therefore, are always worth watching.t Sod has no new support for X. 


ee 33. NBC?T° 1 22 892* min” ff, copt aeth (Orig?) Did omit edOorres. 
This is peculiarly interesting, for although 1 omits, 118-209 
with 28 substitute ovtes. The very manner of the coptics 
shows that they had well considered the place, and they too 
make a great show of ovres. The rest and DW all have 
eMMorvres, which represents a far more graceful act, and syr cu 
sin: “came near and.” The point is this. In ver. 32 we read 
Kat avaBavrov (euBavtwv) avTwv els TO TAOLOV ExOTTaTEY O aVELOS. 
They had already entered the ship, and for some reason 
edovres seemed out of place in ver. 33. It is true it does not 
read (as Tischendorf would have one suppose) ov de eAOovtes ev 
T@ TAoW...., but ov Se ev Tw TAL EAOoVTES TPOTeKUINGTAY aT. 
But eAGovres has been removed and not added, I feel sure. 

Another “ nicety ’’ obtains in the following verse: 

xiv. 34. n\Oov ems thy ynv NBCD*NT°WALONt fam 13 33 157 238 
245 Sod™’™ e¢ “ad terram’”’ (sah € OPAl elnkap, boh 
eHorwn elnkag,t) syr, et syr cu sin diserte 

nrOov evs tov ynv Ei rell omn latt “in” et d Orig** et Sod tat 

This is a distinction and a ‘‘ betterment.” d opposes D and Origen 
is against the NB group, whose adherents are none too many. I consider 
e to be wrongly grouped by Tisch and Horner and to belong to the side 
I have put it on. 

[ A touch suggested by Origen in xiv. 36 is rejected by NB, but not 
by some of their followers. He would have (bis) wa cay povov aypwvrat 
with ® 1 [non 118-209] fam 13 [non 124] 22 38 al. alig. All the uncials 
have wa povov aovra. The vg and some itala (but not de “ut tantum’’) 
have “ut vel fimbriam...” and f ‘‘ut tantum vel fimbriam.” | 
xv. 35/36. nat maparyyeras.. .edaBev NBD 1 fam 13 33 W-H Sod 

(Orig evOade Se ov Kedever adra TraparyyeNret) 
Kat exeNeuoe.. . Kat AaBwv Rell Gr fl gq vg 
AQMAPATTEIE ae..-aqxr sah 
ows, AYySongen...aqdi bor 
Kat exédeuoe...Kat edaBev syrabceg, k (et praecepit 
et accepit) 

et cum jussisset. .accepit d 

First observe that Origen directs this operation on the part of 


t We may cite another instructive instance where N and not B is offended at a 
“pair” of readings and cancels the second. It is all in the same neighbourhood (see 
xiii, 28, under Coptic). This occurs at Matt. xii. 37. N alone prefers ex yap rwv Aoyor 
cov Sixawbnon Kat ex Tov Noywv (—cov) KkatadicacOnoy. Soden does not add one single 
new witness. 

t~ Soden refuses em: (upon what principle ?) against all his 7 family and nine new 
witnesses. 


BIN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 61 


NBD*. The comparison is with xiv. 19 where NZ Orig had exedevoev 
(against xeAeveas of most, xedevcate B* Sod). Observe sah uses a 
different word here from the one in xiv. 19, transliterating in xv. 35 but 
not using the participle. d does not agree with the exact participial form 
of D, nor do any Latins, nor is it borne out by sy. As in 36 init. Syrr 
and latt (except d) maintain the «av ehaBev of the Greeks, it looks very 
much (whether «as mapnyyee be correct or not), as if NB had inverted 
the construction and that xa: wapnyyere (or rapnyyerre Se as sah)... 
AaBov or kat AaBov was what was intended, and not xas wapayyetdas... 
ehaBev. For the question is as between ‘‘ Commanding the multitude 
to sit down...he took the seven loaves...” or ‘‘And he commanded 
the multitude to sit down...and taking...” 

Follows another case of probable “‘ finessing”’ : 

Matt. 

xvi. 19. ras Kredas (pro Tas KAets) N*B* (both corrected) LW Sod 
Orig 4/5 against tas «xAes by all others and N°B* Orig 1/5 
Eus Chr Phot. Doubtless Origen caused this. 

xvii. 4. woinow (pro romowpev) NBC* 174 604 b fi fe. This is 
different. Because, as mrovnowpey obtains in Mark and Luke 
(ix. 5, ix. 83), it might be thought that this wouow was the 
“ neutral” text in Matthew. I think it is a mistake however, 
as both coptics are against it, as all the syriacs and Origen 
distinctly. This is a place where we may emphasise the 
importance of a concurrent study of the versions. 

They are so often with us in whole or in part, that their absence 
here is very important. How come 0 and ff,» of the Latins to join ? 
In the first place faciam occupies the last place in the short line of 6 and 
a ligature for us may easily have disappeared or been omitted in copying 
b or the parents of 6 fi.. As to the parallels, D only indulges in roiunow 
in Luke (d facio), but in Mark D d for rromow and faciam are joined 
by no Greeks but by b 7 ff2, all Latin support therefore. The point is 
perhaps not worth debating, but I incline to think it is an ancient Latin 
error which has crept into the three places. It is very curious that D, 
who perpetrates woinow alone among Greeks in Mark and Luke, should 
be absent from NBC in Matthew. But the other versions are check 
enough, without speaking of the absence of 892 and others. 

A little matter of order follows however in the verse which is highly 
instructive. B and ¢ alone write cxnvas tpets for tpets oxnvas of all the 
rest and the versions, incl. Latin. But in Luke this is the order 
(and of some in Mark). Ergo, B was looking at a parallel, and that 
parallel probably Luke ix. 33, and his conjunction with e in Matt. 
shows a Latin sympathy which may have extended to and account for 
qomow as well. 

Xvil. 7. Kat arpapevos avtwy for cat mato avtwy kat NB 892 only. 
Anyone who will consult the beginning of this verse with its 


62 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


Matt. 
: three verbs will see that there is an opening for finessing; 


NB avail of it; so does sah, and so do some Latins in 
other respects. But I expect boh or syr is nearest the truth. 
Soden follows NB 892 with %*. See his note. 
xvii. 15. xaxos exer (pro xaxws tacye) NBLZ42M Sod cum Orig 
Chrot, This is against the versions as well as the remaining 
Greeks. Soden refuses eye. Cf Marcix.17 eyovta ria adanov. 
20. odyortotiay...petaBa...evOev...for amiotiav...petaBnd... 
evrevOev may be considered, as the variations are so numerous. 
See the evidence. 

xvii. 7. avayen yap (—eoTw) BULN2ON3 Sod” 1 33 al. pauc. This 
seers to be an “improvement” (cf Hebr ix. 16 23 etc) and is 
not witnessed to by N rell nor the Latins. In the Gospels we 
can only compare with Luke xiv. 18 eyo avaykny, and xxi. 23 
eoTat yap avayxyn, where all are agreed (+Luke xxiii. 17 
avayxny Se eyev), Bi are opposed here in Matt. by Origen. 

8. Here is another question of “pairs.” ‘‘If thy hand or thy 
foot offend thee cut them off.” This plaral offends our super- 
sensitive Alexandrian ear, so avrov is substituted for avra by 
NBDL 1 fam 13 157 243 245 Sod™”° with latt sah [contra boh] 
syr arm aeth Lucif Hil, and avrnv U 28. I prefer the harder 
and less smooth reading avta with EFGHKMSVWXTAIIZ® 
min pl and boh. Observe X deserts the Latins here and W is 
against NBDL. W-H and Sod follow Alexandria. (Syr cu sin 
exxoov (~avtov) kat Bare avtov amo aov.) Cf Mare ix. 
43/45/47 where yeup, vrovs, and ofOadpos axe treated separately. 

Note NB are running with the Latin in this verse. We have the 
Latin order kvdov 1 yodrov by NB 157 f** against D and all the rest 
and sah boh syr arm aeth Orig for ywrov y KvAAov. Also avrov for aura. 

xviii. 14. & (pro els) NBDLM™"™N3N 32 157 892 al® e* vg” 

As regards the two Latins, wnus being occasionally abbreviated 
might have led to unum. As regards these few Greeks it is plainly 
an accommodation to and antithesis of advo in verse 13 of the lost sheep, 
and a reference to the earlier verses 4/6. There would be no reason to 
change é to els, but some reason to change els to é&. Hence I charge 
another “nicety” to NB. This time Origen opposes them with fifteen 
or sixteen uncials and all the other Latins. 

xviii. 25. Another question of “ pairs.” ...mpaOnvat kat rnv yuvaika Kat 
ra texva) So NB 1 [non fam] 258 604 Soda *t only, against 
apad. Kae THY Yyuvaxa avTov Kat Ta Texva Of all the rest, and 
of John Damascene; the syr and coptic versions add the 
possessive to both yuvaica and texva, so it surely belongs in one 
place. The Latins (except h 7.) are with the mass of Greeks for 
“et uxorem ejus et filios ; only vg® adds ejus after filios in line 
with its syriac stem, and h 7, transfer from uxorem to filios. 


Matt, 


BIN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 63 


xviii. 31. ov (pro 8:2) Only NBD 21 33 de W-H, non Sod. 

All others including boh sah latt have Se, except aeth (cas as usual) 
and 7, arm which omit. 

The exigencies of the situation are well illustrated by Horner, who 
translates the boh ~e by: “So his fellow servants...” Burkitt syr: 
“ Now when his fellow servants.” 

xx. 21. Yet another question of “pairs.” From eis ex befiwv cov 


Xxi. 


34. 


kat eis e€ evwrupov cov NB Dam wish to drop the first 
cov, against all others, including coptic and the versions. 
Soden cannot produce another ms. A reference to the parallel 
at Mark x. 87 shows cov occupying there the foremost place: 
els cov ex SeEvwv Kas els cov e& evwvupwy (vel apictepwv). There 
BDWAS (but not &) with 1 2°¢ Sod be d fr gi2t k g omit the 
second gov. (D and some Latins omit the second cov in Matt.) 

oppatov for od$artpov B with DLZ fam 13 892 only and 
Orig 1/2 against N and the rest. onpa is much more classical] 
than op@adpos in the connection in which the word is used 
here; it occurs but once in N.T. at Mark viii. 23. (B varies 
the order alone here, placing the possessive first with coptic. 
Orig does this once but with opPadpor, and his other quotation 
places avtav after oppatwv.) Sod oppatwr tet without new Mss. 


. Yet another question of “ pairs”: 


emt ovov Kas ews modrov NBULUNSM 1 [non fam] 124 [non fam] 
2° (Sod) 604 Sod? syx sah aeth ; but om. ems sec. with CDW 
and the mass, all latins boh dis. arm and Orig’® Cyr as LXX. 

This seems to be a clear ‘‘ improvement” (against Origen). 
We may be told that as the quotation of the mass agrees with 
the LXX it is the mass which elided the second em. The 
reply to this insinuation is contained in my other examples of 
“pairs.” I will say no more except that Sod** follows Hort. 

Note. The LXX quotation (Zach. ix. 9) is ems virofuyiov Kav 
mowrov veov, Origen cites five recensions [see quotation in 
Tisch] where Aguila has em. ovov kav mwdov vwov ovadar, 
Symmachus : emt ovov kat mwdov wov ovados, Theodot : ems ovov 
kat Twrov voy ovov. In no case does a second eve intrude. 
In the face of this Westcott and Hort have the temerity (there 
is no other word for it) to print the LXX quotation in capitals 
following B: En! ONON 

KAI Efi NWAON YION YNOZYTIOY 


. The very next verse shows ovveratey (for mpocetakev) borrowed 


from Matt. xxvi. 19, xxvii, 10 by BCD 88 604 Sod™ 
Evst 48 against NW and all others and Orig'*" Huss, yet 
actually incorporated by W-H into their text without marginal 
alternative. The Latins differentiate with praecepit in xxi. 6, 
but constitwit in xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10, yet the Revisers follow 


64 


Matt. 


xxi, 18. 


25. 


CODEX B AND ITS AULIES. 


Hort in both xxi. 5 and xxi. 6, and Souter gives us no foot- 
note evidence. Note that d has praeceperat in xxi. 6 over 
against ovverafev. The parallels in Mark and Luke express 
the matter differently, so that BCD are merely harmonizing 
Matthew’s language later, forgetting wpocerafey formerly at 
i. 24 and viii. 4. (cvvracow occurs only in the N.T. at 
Matt. xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10.) Sod refuses ovvetafev here in Matt. 

But Hort says (vol. i. p. 556) ...‘‘ render it morally certain 
that the ancestries of B and & diverged from a point near the 
autographs and never came into contact subsequently.” 

Well then, either B or N is right here. The whole matter 
is thus confined to St. Matthew’s Gospel. For B we have 
six witnesses, C and D& Evan 33 604 Sod™ and Hust 48, all 
witnesses in such a case of rather peculiar character. For 
SN we have about 2000 witnesses of every possible shade of 
transmission, including W 892, plus the Latins—en bloc— 
distinctly, plus Origen three times and Eusebius twice. Yet 
Hort’s and the Revisers’ intuition tells them that Origen and 
Eusebius are wrong to back &, and that B and six witnesses 
kept pure from the common herd “at a point near the 
autographs.” This is criticism gone mad. If N and B 
divided at a point “near the autographs and never came into 
contact subsequently” then it is N here which holds the 
balance of power by an overwhelming majority. There is 
practical agreement that St. Matthew used mposerafey twice 
previous to the passage in xxi. 6, and ovverafev twice sub- 
sequently. The central and fifth passage is the one in dispute. 
By all canons of Law and Logic we declare that N Origen 
and Eusebius here give the lie direct to BCD® Evan 33 604 
and Sod™* Hust 48, Hort and the Revisers. 
mpwt (pro mpwmas) N*BD x** only (cf copt) W-H [non Sod] 

This appears certainly a preference. If ‘‘ Antioch ” changed 
apet to wpwias here why did they not do it elsewhere ? 

tpwcas is left alone at Matt. xxvii. 1 because it is mpwvas de 

yevouerns, and Se yevouevns is probably conveyed by ellipse 
here at xxi. 18. But NBD wish to be more precise, preferring 
to emphasise another ‘“nicety” of scholarship, and write 
ampot. Consult St. Mark, wpa: everywhere. Ipwiws is 
Matthaean and Johannine. 
Almost another question of “pairs.” to Samticpu to Iwav(v)ov 
NBCZ 22 38 372 Sod" [non 157] Evst 48 Orig against 70 
Barricpa Iwavvov D rell omn Cyr. In Mark (zi. 30) 
NABCDLA Sod 33 favour the second vo, in Luke (xx. 4) 
NDLNR favour it. (Sod quotes m but N only extant.) In 
Luke then B omits with the mass. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 65 


Matt. 


xxi. 46. Another probable “‘ nicety”’ of Orig. eve: (pro emeidn) (em) B 
D(emr) Li fam 1 22 83 892 Orig’ Sod*" et tat. All the rest have 
evevdn (except ote Sod"), Now emetdn is apparently not 
Matthaean except here. Cf Matt. xviii. 32, xxvii. 6, where eve 
is used. I do not care to emphasise this place for several 
reasons, and I may be told that D strengthens the combination. 
Yet observe two things, first that D is not wholly with it, 
because D says em: ws while NBL 1 22 Orig®?/6 gay eres evs 
against the mass, and secondly because both coptics have 9,uc 
thus contradicting NBL here. Tisch refers to xxi. 26 and 
xiv. 5 where #s remains unchanged. Further note that B 604 
ALONE at xiv. 5 substitute eves for ore there, almost clearly 
accommodating to xxi. 46. This shows that B fully meant 
ewe. in the latter perhaps, but it also reveals consideration 
of the parallels. Tisch adds ‘‘ Contra vero et. in Or duobus 
locis (de sex) codex praebet ws pro ets.” 

xxii. 10. This is a most important place. NB*I 892 Sod’! Cyr ana 
W-H (against Origen) and Soden text are for forcing St. 
Matthew to use vuzdwv here instead of yauos, which latter is 
used by DW and all other Greeks, Soden naming but one new 
witness against it. Observe carefully that none of the critical 
cursive codices join here except 892. It is certainly a false 
reading, but how did it occur ? 

First of all let us enquire where vyzdwr is used in the N.T., and we 
find it in Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 19, and Luke v. 34, and in every one of 
these three cases it is used in alliterative antithesis to vuudzos. 

“un Suvatat ot viot Tov vuppevos TevOew eh ocov mEeT aUTWY ETTLY O 
vuudeos.” Matt. 

“un SuvavTas o1 viol TOU VULPWVOS EV WO VULPIOS PET AUTWV EoTLY 
vnotevery,” Mark. 

* un Suvacbe Tous viovs TOU VU“ GwWOS EV WO VUMPLOS MET AUTWY EOTLY 
(7rowmoat) vnoreverv.”” Luke. 

It is used nowhere else and never in the nominative. It is a rare 
word anyhow; classically it is used by Pausanias, of the temple of 
Bacchus, Ceres and Proserpine. 

Again I ask how did the three Greeks NBL work this into their text, or 
rather I should say, to be quite fair, how did they find it in their texts ? 

The Latin texts give no assistance, for in accord with the language 
they all turn «as exAnoOn o yauos into the plural (even d opposite De") et 
repletae sunt nuptiae. The Latin then is hardly involved. But upon 
consulting the Syriacs we find they say, not “‘ wedding-feast,” but “‘ locus 
convivii,” and this is also found in sah (and aeth) very definitely : “‘ the 
place of marriage,” RoOinarsa Muwyercet, against boh Nxenis,on 
exactly the same word as used in xxii. 2, 3 for yapous. 


I maintain then that this is one of the choicest places we can find 
F 


66 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


to investigate the matter of the influence of the versions on NBL and to 
ascertain which versions. Here we can exclude Latin and Bohairic, and 
we are left with syr and sah. It is quite certain that sah or syr is 
responsible for this direct influence on NBL. It is beyond dispute 
that o yayos and not o vuydwv is the proper reading here. D is a clear 
witness here for yaos, with all other Greeks and Origen twice and Chrys. 
I think it is criticism gone absolutely wild and mad to accept vypdov 
here, and it is unpardonable of Hort to put vyydev in his text without 
any alternative in the margin and equally wrong of Soden. The 
Revisers, to their credit be it said, eject it, but Souter will not give his 
reasons (as he should) in a footnote. If Hort could have seen (as we can 
now see) the original page of Codex B he would have observed that the 
B?, who went over the whole text, carefully refrained from inking over 
O NYM@WN (6 [dMOC stands in the margin by his hand or that of another 
corrector). The Revisers by the restoration of yayos now admit that 
Hort was wrong. If vuzdev then be not basic and “ neutral,” my point is 
absolutely proved that the versions produced it and influenced NBL. If 
vupdav be not “the true text,” then I have won my point all along the 
line, and the other matters treated of here fall into the regular category of 
‘“‘ Improvements,” for the same influences bear directly on these matters. 

I hope in future, when we observe in other places that not a single 
sympathising cursive stands with NX or B or L or NBL, that we shall 
make it a canon of criticism to exclude their mal-editing of the text. 

[Note, as to absence of minuscule support here, a place like xxit. 25, 
where ynuas (for yauncas) by NBL is supported by =@ fam 1 (including 
299) 6 22 33 60 75 91 124 [non fam] 157 604 892 Evst 48 Sod™ Origen, 
and is quite on another footing. I mention it here, as I have not 
listed it elsewhere, and the support is of the regular flock of minuscule 
birds. 

As regards the intimacy of sah and syr (without NB) observe xxii. 18 
evrrev + avtois Z 33 892 sah syr cu sin and some pesh and ¢ and aeth, 

Note that in xxii. 11 12 evdvya yapov is again rendered by sah “ the 
clothing of the place of marriage,” while syr omits this “locus,” nor do 
NBL repeat anything but evdvua yayuovu in both places. Possibly then at 
xxii. 10 the matter narrows down to syr influence on NBL. 

When Cyr on the side of NBL opposes Origen it is always suspicious 
of Alexandrian accommodation. See other places, Besides which, Cyr 
and Origen are often on both sides of a question in different parts of their 
writings. | 
Matt. 

xxii. 16. Aeyovras (pro Aeyovtes) NBLT" 27 66 against all the rest 
and Dam. This is quite a clear case in order to refer to 
arroaTeAXovaw Tous walnras... It would have been impossible 
for ‘“‘ Antioch” to revise here. Xeyovras is clearly the more 
natural, and Aeyovtes (eschewed by NBL) the more difficult. 


Matt. 


xxill. 9. 


xxv. 18. 


IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 67 


Notice the lone and lorn company of the cursives 27 66 
added here. The passage is kas amogtehXovoly avTw Tous 
pabntas avtwy peta tov Hpwdiavav AeyovTas* SiOarKane K.T.r, 
Soden misquotes 604. 

o maTnp o ovpavios [ pro o waTnp o ev (Tots) ovpavors] NBL fam 
13 [non 346] 33 238 892 Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2, against the rest and 
latt copt Clem Hus Nyss Bas 1/2 Cyr 1/2 Dam. This is more 
important than it seems at first sight, for it appears to be a 
“nicety” of NBL to conform to supposed Matthaean usage. 
Bas 1/2 and Cyr 1/2 are suspicious marks. Turn to Sir John 
Hawkins’ ‘Horae Synopticae,’ p. 32, and there will be found the 
remark that ovpavios is Matthaean (being only used elsewhere 
once in Luke ii. 18f and once in Acts xxvi. 19). He lists the 
Matthaean passages as v. 48, vi. 14 26 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35, 
xxiii. 9. This from Westcott and Hort’s text.t Now as to 
the passages intervening between the first and the last, the 
remark is correct, but atv. 48 as here at xxiii. 9 the authorities 
are divided. Clem is on both sides at v.48, and a considerable 
number witness there for ovpawos, but here at xxiii, 9 it is 
different, and Clem Orig Eus the Latins and Coptics besides 
all other Greeks witness against NBL and three cursives. 
It is probably therefore a wish to conform to Matthaean 
diction here. At this rate all individuality will be 
lost to our synoptists and the problem thrown into con- 
fusion. See under xxi. 18 and elsewhere for the same kind of 
thing. [Soden has o ovpavios in text but only cites °°” new. | 
wpuéev ynv S&B (tv ynv C* 604) L 33 fi vg** arm boh aeth 
(om ffs ynv) against wpvfev ev tn yn by all the rest, including D 
latt sah syr Orig™, I charge this (observe against sah syr 
lat?!) to be a deliberate improvement, greedily seized by West- 
cott ¢ Hort and Sod (for they have no marginal alternative), 
but an improvement nevertheless. Why should ‘ Antioch” 
and even 892 have revised to ev ty yn, when wpv&ev nearly 
always takes the accusative? This is a deliberate Alexandrian 
nicety of grammar. The word occurred at Matt xxi. 33 “ «av 
wpvtev ev avtw dAnvov,” and occurs once more only at Mark 
xii. 1 “‘xae wpvEev virodnviov,” where there was no room for 
improvement, although even at Matt. xxi. 33 N saw fit to 
remove ev before avrw. I do not charge this as a harmonistic 
improvement at all, for in the parallel in Luke xix. 20 the 
servant hides the talent in a napkin, nor did ‘‘ Antioch” get 





¢ ovpamov is here used, but B*D*d recognizing that ovpavos is not Lucan change to 
ovpavov. No others change. 
{~ Which has befogged the synoptic problem. 


F 2 


68 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Matt. 
; ev tr yn from Matt. xxv. 25 expuwa Tu taXavrov cov ev tn yn.t 


It is simply a grammatical improvement. The company kept 
is merely of a sympathetic order which our other studies lead 
us to expect here. 
XXv. 27. ede ce ov (pro edet ovv ce) NBCL 33 604 892 y* Sod, against 
all else and against Coptics and Latins, savours of improvement. 
xxvii. 5. pias ta apyvpia ers Tov vaov (proev To vaw) NBLI33 
fam 69 99 157 273 604 Sod® #8 and versions, but not latin 
nord. Orig and Hus are on the side of NBL for this improve- 
ment with Sod. Cf B alone at Matt. x. 16 sou eyw arocTAAw 
vpas ws TpoBata es wecov AuKV, instead of ev “ecw AVKOY. 

42. moter. em avtov NBL 33 42 46 238 243 273 892 
Sod™"r Hust 60 12 (sol inter latt cum Aug) (syr) Cyr®™ (es 
avtov % min‘, avtov sah boh, avrw AD min aliq Eus Ps-Ath et 
latt ei, sed er avtw EW unc" min?) 

44, cuvotavpwbertes suv avtw NB 892 





otavpwbertes ouv avTw DL latt verss 
ovvataupwdertes et avtov Of 157 
auto AW unc rell omn vid 


I should hesitate to class this as an improvement, but for four 
things, first because @' by improvising wer avrov shows that there was no 
ouv in his copy or he would no doubt have used it, secondly the absence 
of any minuscules to support NB, but 892, thirdly the simpler reading of 
DL, and fourthly the general bad record of NB in such matters. Someone 
has revised here. I would be willing to accept the reading of NB if need 
be, but we should require a good number of cursives to tell us it was 
right, whereas neither 1 nor 13 (28 wanting) nor 2° nor 604 come into 
play at all, while 157 sides with @*, 

xxvii. 64. —avrov Only 8B arm pers, but no cursives, and Tisch W-H 
txt [non R-V Sod] Soden can find no cursives to support. 
XXvilil. 8. aedoveas ( pro e&eAOoveat) NBCL fam 13 33 Sod”*!-4 Sod ete. 

No others do it. Neither W nor 892 nor the coptics. 

Burgon points out (‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 84) that 
this group NBCL 18 33 e has ignorantly effected revision here, forgetting 
that the women were inside the grave (Mark xvi. 5 Kas euceAoveas ets TO 
punpetov ... Xvi. 8 Kat e&eOoveas epyyov amo Tov pynueov; Luke xxiv. 3 
evcerBoverat Se ovx eupov TO Taya... 9 Kat vTooTpEWacat atro TOU uYNpLELOV) 
and therefore that this is a purely gratuitous emendation by NBCL in 
Matt. because in St. Matthew’s account the entrance into the grave is 
not specified. I agree with him. 

This should, perhaps, come under the head of “ Exchange of 
Prepositions.” 
et ee ar A Se Ee os ee 2 ee 


t In verse 18 “he dug (‘a hole’ understood) in the ground.” In verse 25 “I hid 
thy talent in the ground” is different. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 69 


Lastly we will adduce some of the passages where 


Matt, 


Vi. 


Xili. 


Xlv. 


XVi. 


XVii. 


7. 


48. 


B and Origen are in conflict : 


umoxpitat B3(= Sod*®) syr cu only 
eOviot the rest and Orig 


B or NB and Origen in conflict. 


. Most serious opposition as to the Greek fundamental text: 


d dav NaAnhwow Orig L and most, against NBD (NB 3 (— ear) 
Aarnoovow ; Db (—eav) Nadovow), where NB take the side of 
Coptic and partially of Latin, but Latins (except d) have quod 
and the subjunctive. What are ff and k doing with “ quod 
locuti fuerint” if NBD be right (and these do not agree 
among themselves)? Has Origen gone crazy here too? Why 
should we think Origen wrong here now with the mass of 
Greeks including all the cursives usually otherwise sympathetic 
to the NB recension as against these mss ? 

NB unc! rell = exraurovow, but D (d lucebunt) 124 238 Cyr 
ORIGEN and (Justin) have Nawwouacsv (Justin otay ot pev 
Sixator Nayrpwow for tore ot Six. daprpovow). Hence if we 
want Origen’s text with D, it is the uncompounded word (for 
which also syrt} copt and latt rell ‘ fulgebant ”’ may also stand) 
which we need. Nota whisper in Westcott and Hort’s text or 
margin of D d Justin Cyr Orig'* ! (To these add Sod**" fam ¢*.) 


. Twice in this verse B opposes Origen, once specifically. B 


adds (with the versions) avrov after tous wa@ntas against Orig 
diserte, and writes mov for to mAowov against Origen and 
the mass. 


36. +xav 1 22 33 al. Origen but povov XB and the other Greeks. 


. 22. Seas 1 [non fam] and Orig (of a sevissime). 
KAKOS NB unc omn rell minn. 
20. eretiunoey B*D syr cu d e against the rest and Origiater, 


dueorecAato and Orig diserte ‘‘o pev ovy pat. memouKe Kata 
TWA Tov avTLypapwy To ToTe SuecTELNaTO...LaTEOY O€ OTL TiVAa TMV 
avtlyp. Tov Kata paTO. exer To erreTiwnoev ”’ since he himself uses 
Steotethato four times. Hort sees a necessity to put emetisnoev 
in his text. 


. svatpepopevon Se avrov NB1 (non fam] 892 W-H txt, Sod mg 


latt pl conversantibus. 
avactpedopevav Se avtrov CD rell omn et boh et re...fice. 
The “neutral” text is found in Origen orpefopevwr Se avtwv 
(ef sah syr). 





t Syr cw sin vary; cw “gleam,” sin “shine,” almost imperceptible difference in 
writing the syriac words. 


70 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Matt. 
(xviii. 10. I forbear to say anything about Orig and Hus + Tv ev ty 


exkrAnova after opate wn Katadpovynonte evos TMV LLKPwY TOUTWY) 
xx. 16. (See under “‘ Coptic.’’) 
xxi. 5. See under “ Improvement.” 
6. Seeunder ‘Improvement ” cvverafev BCD 33 604 Evst48 Sod? 


mpocetatev & rell omn Orig Fuss 


19. ov pnxere BLA against 
pyKete N rell and Orig! 
Xxli. 4. nTowana NBCDLZAN 1 22 33 892* Sods 
NToLwaca rell et Orig Cyr Dam 
10. 0 vupdort NBL 892 Sod only (no other min), 
0 Yyapmos rell omn et Origen bis 
xxiii. 87. erscuvakar Orig Eus (emiouvayew &, ericvvayayewv B reil) 


xxv. 41. os karnpapevoe Orig® Hipp Const Hus Caes Bas (xatnpapevos 
NBLT" 33 Sod'° boh Cyr 1/2 soli) 
XXvi. 28. Ts Kawwns SiaOnens Orig and most (Ts diaOnxns NBLZ 33 Sod? 
bohunus Cyr (Cypr) ) 
39. Of our Lord’s prayer: watep tantum  Orig**s dis (e¢ Celsus) et 
Justin Tren! Hussexies Athi Ps-Ath Cypr Did Cyr Bases a 
8 p vgg® et dim Orig**¥s, with LAD fam 1 892 al”, witness 
against matep wou of NB and the rest. 

In Westcott and Hort’s margin there is not a sign of any 
alternative to marep wov, and yet surely Celsus’ and the 
Valentinians’ ‘‘ w wzarep’”’ deserves a hearing ! 

53. wAew only NBD (latt) against Origen adevovs with all the rest ; 

Soden quotes Orig for mre. 
dwdexa (—7) NBDL 604 b d against Origen y dwdexa with all 

the rest. 

Above we have certainly two really “ neutral” readings of 
Origen, as against NB, xiii. 43 Aappovow and xxvi. 39 wartep. 


Hort, vol i. p. 557: “ On the other hand every combination of N with 
another primary Ms presents for the most part readings which cannot be 
finally approved...” But thereagainst note: 

Origen and S against B. 


Matt. 
vi. 7. eOvixot N omn et Orig (contra B3 syr cu vroxpirat) 


21. xan xapdia = & omn et Orig (contra B m aeth boh™™ — xa) 
vil. 14 init. ote (—de) N*X m boh Orig Naass etc (ott Se B sah 4/6) 
x. 87. Habent cat o dirov...pov akios SN plur Orig Orig Eus 
Cypr 2/3 (contra BD 17 248 ai4 d Cypr 1/3 om) 
xi. 15. Habent axovew ®& plur Docet Just Orig Origi™ (contra om BD 
32 174 604 d k syr sin) 


t Cf article under “ Improvement” and sah syr. 


B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 71 
Matt. 


xi. 21. Habent xaOnwevo. NCU 33 al. Orig Origi™ (contra om B 
plur sah boh syr lat) 
xii. 49. yerpav N(D) latt pl Orig Evang®™ (+avrou B plur) 
xili, 4, cau nXOev ta metewa xa Kxatedayev ND plur Orig («ae 
eOovta Ta Terewa cated. B fam 13 Sod "4 e¢ txt) 
{ xv. 32, nuepas tpes ® min Orig?® (tpes nuepas B al.) 
Xvli. 4. tpews sxnvas WN plur Orig® (cxnvas tpes B e) 


xvi. 1. ernpwrwv N min alig boh Orig (ernpwrncav BCD al.) 
14. adndor Se N plur copt lat syr Orig (oc de B Hus) 
20. duecrecXato = © _splur sah boh Orig™* (eretinoev BD) 
xvii. 9. avacty N plur Orig (eyep9n BD Sod****) 
10. —avtou NLWZ Sod al. Orig (Habent B plur) 


25. amo Tivwy ® plur Orig Cyr 2/4 (amo twos B Sod™4 Cyr 2/4) 
xvill. 7. Habent ecrw ® plur Orig (om BL2® al.) 
16. dvo 1 Tpi@v paptupwv WN al. Orig (8v0 papt. 7 TpLwv B al.) 
xx. 17. tous Swdexa tantum NDLZ etc Orig (contra B et rell) 
xxl. 6, mpocerakev ®& plur Orig'* (cuverafev BCD 33 604 Hust 48 
Sod**53) 
8. (sec loco) ectpwcav §=9ND*"c € ff. ¢ boh Orig (eotpwvvvov B rell) 
19. yevovro (for yevntar) N Sod Orig'®™ 

Ete etc, and often 892 is on the side of N in the above list. 

Further note that NB when they are in sympathy with the Zvuny®™ 
do not keep on the same side. At xii.48 B is with this Gospel. At 
xii. 49 itis N. 

But see as to N in detail Part II. where the main differences between 
N and B are recorded with the supporting authorities. 


CHAPTER IIT. 


B in St. Marnr’s GOSPEL. 


“‘ Uberblickt man in Grossen die Ergebnisse fiir Markus, so sind sie der Annahme, 
dass in ihm die iilteste Aufzeichnung vorliegt, nicht giinstig. Er ist dem Judentum 
entfremdet...Ausserdem ist Markus vielfach tibermalt...’”—Merx : Die vier kanonischen 
Evangelien, etc. 1. Theil, u. Hialfte, p. 173. 


‘‘And what means are there to decide such questions? As long as scholars dream 
of one definite primitive Gospel, in open contradiction to Luke’s proem, they will both 
raise and answer them; but as soon as that unwarranted supposition is removed we get 
rid of a host of inextricable questions.” —Blass: Philology of the Gospels, pp. 178/179. 


I would like to preface what I have to say as to St. Mark’s Gospel 
by the remark that all I have written should be included between two very 
large square brackets ; for the problems offered in this Gospel are utterly 
different from those which exist in the other three. It is true that the 
same features as to NBCL exist to some extent in St. Mark as elsewhere, 
but they must be considered from a different point of view. One new 
feature is the constant addition of A in St. Mark to the NBI group. A 
in St. Mark is purely NBL ; I cannot say “Egyptian ” exactly, although 
there is Coptic sympathy with this group, because W comes in here to 
show us an absolutely different Greek recension existing in Egypt side 
by side with that of SB. Although DW are close, W e¢ are twin brethren 
from Mark i—iv. jin and it seems that I was perfectly right to speak 
of two or three Greek recensions in St. Mark. 

Consider this: iv. 1. 


NBCL: 


xaOnobas ev tn Oaracon Kat Tas o oydos Tpos THY Oadacoay emt 
THS YNS noav 
D: 
KaOnorat Tepav THs Oaracans Kat Taso ox¥Aos Tepay THS Daracons nV 
d circa, mare adigq_ circa mare 


Ww: 
KaOnobas Tapa Tov atytaXrov Kat Tras Oo oxros EV TW ALYytardw nV 
be ad litus beef fe gi in litore 
¢ ff, — proxime litus Orig'** secus mare in terris 
vg circa mare super terram 

As to mv (pro noav) erat is read by a b gz 1 q vg Orig’, erant by d, 
stabat is found in f ff, 91, while c (r) reads staret, and it is left to e to write 
sedebat. As W does not conform to this last, we must suppose that W 
was not deliberately following our e¢, but something much older, and 
note b has erat and d has erant. 

How is it that neither 2° nor 604 have any relation to W and the 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 73 


Latins here? All the Old Latin and Coptic elide ext trys yns or include 
it in the expression im litore. It is left for W alone to graecize this. 

Right after this, the common base of W ) ce apart from the rest 
and apart from D d omit in iv. 5 dia To pm exew Babos yns. 

That the Greek of W is an independent ¢rans/ation is seen at iv. 20, 
for W alone writes ro ev (ter) for ev. | And at iv. 21 xaverar for epyeratz, 
where D has amtera:, which can be read in two ways. Otherwise we 
might think that e obtained damus from the dwuev of W (iv. 30, others 
Owpev or rapa8adwpev), or that b e got crescit from av&e of W (iv. 32, 
others ava8acver), instead of W obtaining this Greek via the Latin. 

An interesting point is the doubling of pwella by ¢ in v. 41, but W 
with the rest to copactov, so that e obtained this later than the time of 
‘W, and Aphraates’ remarks on this subject appear to be the merest 
tradition. This is helpful as to dates. 

W# (which breaks in at vii. 83) seems further to be another 
independent translation. 


Mark. 


In Mark we must be exceedingly careful and avail ourselves of every 
scrap of new evidence. I will therefore recapitulate the position as to 
several important witnesses. 

k only begins at viii. 8, but eis available for i. 20-vi. 9 (again only 
at xl. 37-xiii. 3, xiii, 24-27, 33-86) and ? fills in the gap between e and 
k from vi. 13-viii. 8. 

= gives us all Mark to xvi. 14 middle; ® i. I-xiv. 62; W only 
from ix. 6 (shortly after & begins) to end. Paris®’ and 604 and 2° give 
us all St. Mark. Syr sin begins at i. 12/13 and gives all St. Mark 
to xvi. 8 except i. 44-ii. 21, iv. 18-41 and v. 26-vi. 5. Nothing of Syr cu 
survives except xvi. 17-20, which is interesting as giving part of the 
portion at the end after xvi. 8. Finally we have the inestimable new 
witness W, which gives us all St. Mark (except xv. 12-88) including 
Xvi. 9-20 with a long addition therein. 

We have also Horner’s completed labours on sah and boh. 

The Palestinian syriac replaces syr cw sin at i. 1-12 and in the 
ii and v‘* chapters, but not in the iv, 

The cursives Laura4'+ and Paris®’ I continue to quote thus as 
Gregory’s and Scrivener’s numbers differ. I have also used by number 
892 collated by Rendel Harris in 1890, as this number is the same in 





f Consider also ovoray W alone at iv. 81 for os orav (orav N*) or o ort ay D. Note 
the absolute independence of W at iii. 3 ex rov peoou for es tro pecov (0 b de f ff, q Sin 
medium) or ev peow Det Paris’? (c 1 vgK%Z in medio). Also eSov W0l at ii. 12 (for esSopev) 
= viderunt of c (0) (vidisse se a q) while e has vidimus. So that here b c W are either 
basic or the reverse. Which ? N seeks to improve by substituting alone e@avy ev ro expand. 

t =Sod", Apparently not used by Souter, but it seems even closer to NB than Paris”, 


74 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Gregory and Scrivener-Miller, and it has much affinity with NB and is 
useful before chapter ix where VY begins. 


Example of Editing by B. 
Mark 


xiii, 3838. ~ au mpocevyecbe BD 122 acd k vg'* W-H soli contra mundum. 

I wish to point out that & does not strengthen here because we 
catch k (alone among Latins) going with B two verses further on (xiii. 35) 
in a question of “pairs.” Besides, why are N and Li absent; why do 
604 892 and Paris®’ withhold their support? And where are the Coptic 
and the Syriac versions, which scholars tell me merely share the base 
of B? Not even 2° joins BD here. And W abstains with 28 and 157, 
fam1and fam 13. [Von Soden adds no fresh Greeks, not even 6 30 or 050. ] 


Solecisms of B. 


ae i, 18. nxorovbovr (pro nxorovOncav) B®! (See under Historic present) 
26. To axaaptov (— To mvevyua) B. Observe er to wvevpa (—To 
axa$aptov) while W omits the whole. 
36. —ot Bree! 
40. xupie ore B™ (sah boh ort xupte, sed al. vel om xupte 
vel ott vel ambas lectt) 
ibid. Suvn (pro Svaca) B. Why not dvva? [See ix. 22, 23.] 
45. —nv Be! (— nv cat b e solt inter verss) 
These three points occurring thus 
oo) ne together after an interval of two 
iii. 84 init. — Kae B" 


chapters are absolutely indicative of 

editing. The central one shows 

boh influence and the sympathy of 
two Latins. 

iv. 5. xatomov B (@?) The others have omov, or kas ors DW 
it?- Jt looks like a kind of “conflate” here in this “ neutral” 
text. Hort prints [xa] omov, quite disguising the real 
situation. 

ibid Babos rns yns (pro Babos yns) B cum Sod [ut BM in Matt. 
xiii. 5]. D® alone agrees to insert an article Pabos ryv ynv. N 
and all the rest against them. [W and its faithful allies bc e 
omit the clause.] The additjon of the article alone by BD 
looks like translation from Latin. 


35. —yap B boh be 
ibid, ta Oedknpatra =B 


11. e€wOev (pro c&w) B34 (contra rell et Orig) 
15. ot oray (pro Kas oTav) B™ (cf pers) 

16. orav (pro ot orav) po 

20. —ev sec et tert B™ et 3 (of syr) 

22 fin. pavepwOn B™ (¢f syr sah pers aeth) 

28. wAnpes ovevTos B (DW manpns o ceeras) 


32. KaTacKnvouw B 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 75 


Mark 
v. 86. + ov (ante ANadovupevov) ‘ Tov Aoyor Tov NaXoupeEvor Be 


38 fin. moddas (pro wodXa) B*! (qodrous Sod) 
vi. 17, — Ty yuvarca B* txt sol cum Sod 

33. eyvacav BD fam 1 

39. ev (pro ere) Bel 

54 init. ar e€eXOovTav (— avTwr) B" 


vii. 4. asrep eAaSov (pro a mapedkaBov)  B Paris®’ Sod? 
14, Aeyes (pro eXeyev) B 59 soli (see under ‘‘ Historic present ”’) 
15.¢ ro Kowwovv avtov (pro o éuvatat avtov Koivwcat) B*! (6f Aug) 
ibid fin. —Tov (ante av@pwrov) B*vid (against sak; this is to be 
noted because bok acts peculiarly in verse 15, and it is with 
boh [non sah] that NBLA omit the verse 16 following). 


24. exewOe (pro exerbev) B. This is a “nicety”’ before de. 
37. +s (post weromxev) B. See under ‘ Coptic.” 
Vili. 2. nuepais Tpice B*' cum 892 (Harris, Journ. Bib. Lit. 
1890, vol. ix.) 
12. —vpuv BL, no others, no versions, not Origen. 


But W omits both Aeyw and vu, having only azn. 
32. >o etposavtoy Bl asolt W-H Sod (sed cf sah boh), There 
is no good reason for the change by BL: «at mpocdaBopevos o 
teTpos avtov npEato instead of Kat mpocd. avTov o Tetpos npEaTo. 
37. +0 (ante avOpwrros) B@'. See under ‘ Coptic.” 
Ix. 1. wée Twv ectyKkoTwV B(D*), cf ¢ f l vg [contra &, contra 
Orig] 
21. ews B™ (ews ov Sod*?) 

x. 80. Sonv awviay (pro Swnv awviov) B*'. Here is a purist for 
you. No others seem to change. Clem turns it “ Sony éoti 
aimvos,” Q.D.S. § 25, but Barnard in his note to ‘Clem. of 
Alex. Bibl. Text,’ p. 85 = fw7 éorw aidvios. 

39. Suvoueba (pro duvaue@a) Bers 
48. avtoe roAXoe (pro avtw vel avtoy ToAAnL) «=o BB". Cf Orig avtw 
ot Toot and sah 


xi. 1. Bnddayn B™! (ef sah 1/5) 
ibid, To ehatwv (pro Twy edatwv) B*! (of & et k) 
7,8. eavrwov bis$ Be! cum 892 (vide infra xiii. 44) (Sod? 1279") 
11. —tns wpas Be! cum 3 Sod'? 15444 (ef aeth syr sin) 
Xi. 5. amoxtevvuytes B 892 Hust 150 
8. e€eBarav Be 
17, —avrois BD d [non al. | 
386. —ev (ante tw mvevpate) B@ cum Sod? 273 
ibid. xaOtcov (pro xaGov) Be! 


+ This hardly seems a change ‘“ guiltless of ingenuity or other untimely activity of 
the brain and unaffected by mental influences except of the most limited and unconscious 
kind ” (Hort) for in vv. 13/15 B opposes & eight times ! 

$ See page 11 as to this Alexandrian preference. 


76 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


xii. 40. xateoOovtes B Of Luc vii. 33 
xii, 3. xaOidcav B 
7. akounte B et Sod!" 
9. evexa (pro evexev) Brel vid 
12. eravactncetas B™ cum Sod k (cf BA Matt. x. 21 in loco 
parall.) 
13. es oredos Be 
30. ews orov B* (variant plurimum rell, 
vide Part IT.) 
32. ayyedos (pro ot ayryeXor) Be (e¢ bohwinave 4 yglibere) 
34. eavrov pr et sec (pro avtov) Blvd (vide supra xi. 7, 8 
xiv. 20 fin. +ev (inter to et tpvBdor) B™ (C* 2?) Sod 2° See 
under ‘ Coptic.” 
24. —avtois Be 
32. —wéde B*! (avtov pro wb fam 1) 
43. amo twv apy. (pro Tapa twv apy.) B 
49. expates (pro expatnoate) B (expatecte WV) 
60. ore (pro Te) BWY sold (ef boh) (rot 18) 
63. KiT@vas B™ (ué & alzbt) 
69. evrev (pro npkato Aeyewv) B™'. See under “Coptic.” 
xv. 4. ~ovdey B Paris” soli vid 
12. croimow NeyeTe (pro OedeTE Trolnow ov AeyeTe) B'° et W-H [ov] 
15. rove (pro rroeneat) B*! cum Laura}? 
35. eaxrnxoTwv BA) (pro tapecrwtrev NDU al. pauc, 
mrapectynKxoToy al.) 
45. twon (pro twond) BW soli 
xvi. 5. eA@ovcas (pro escedOoucar) B 127 sola 


B and Latin Sympathy. 


It continues to be impossible to divorce B from the Latin and to 
treat its text as ‘‘ neutral.” 

Consult Mark xiv. 30 ye arapynon (pro arapyvnon we) NBDAC (fam 13) 
(we apynon W) and latt (W-H Sod). Ail others and V have the common 
order. The point being that B is supported by both the graeco-latins 
DA (L 69* Sod and k* alone omit ye, evidently seeing in their copies 
the ¢wo orders). In this case, by Hort’s canons, L 69 Sod and & would 
represent the “true” ‘‘neutral’’ shorter text against B. But this is 
very unlikely, as ye is required in this sentence. 

In xiv. 72 the same order occurs in NBCL WAY Old Latins and copt 
(W-H Sod). 

As bearing on this in the immediate context note Mark xv. 1, where 
BDLY4J Sod 46 2°° 892 Sod***" omit ews ro before mpax, agreeing exactly 
with the Latin mane. Again here D supports (so W-H txt, not Sod). 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 77 


In the same neighbourhood, Mark xv. 82 NBDKLATI (W-H Sod) 
omit tov before wpaynr. Here we have conjunction BDA once more 
with the Latin. W is wanting but 28 157 604 Paris®’ do not omit. 

Again xv. 80 for «au xata8a of Greek and Syr we find xataBas by 
NBD*AYV Sod? and k i n vg copt (W-H Sod). 

Again xv. 27 for cravpovow of the usual text we find ecravpwcay 
by B 2”° agreeing with c d ff, k n not followed by W-H or Sod. 

Incidentally we may ask why BDW and c** Sod™* are found alone 
in conjunction at xv. 44 with yén for mada. Is this small group really 
“neutral” here against all else? If so it is a graeco-latin (jam. ..jam). 
Hort has it in his text, so that it must be ‘‘ neutral” as well ! 

Referring to #’s omission in xiv. 30, we find another case at xv. 8, 
where there are two very different readings to choose from, ava8as 
(of NBD 892 sah boh goth (a) ¢ d ff, lr 6 vg) and avaB8oncas (of the 
great majority of Greeks, of the syriac, of arm and of diatess*®), be fi gq 
are wanting, but 6 writes ascendisset over avaPonoas. Aeth conflates 
both readings. 

We know then that in k’s time both readings must have been extant 
—as k omits—and B chose (siding with ND on the Latin side). 

It is quite noteworthy that B goes with the Egyptian versions 
here, besides the Latin, against the syriacs and the diatessaron, and 
against X°PA fifteen uncials and W and all the cursives including fam 1 
fam 13 28 and 157 485 and 2° 604. 

This is a very remarkable place and merits more attention in these 
discussions than it has hitherto received. The new uncial W with = 
(® wanting) VY and the notable cursives Paris” and Laura‘! with all 
Soden’s other codices go with the mass of Greeks for avaPBoncas against 
NBD 892 latt, while the Latin here is hopelessly opposed to the Syriac 
and to its great friend the diatessaron. Further observe extraordinary 
unanimity here among the Latins (the Latin diatessaron vg? is confused 
here and leaves out Mark xv. 8). Sod follows Hort with avaBas. 

Jebb refers to a similar case in the Old Testament as regards 
aveBnoev and avaBonoey 2 Kings xxiii. 9. 

For further detail, observe the following : 

Mark i. 2. -eyw BD Sod® 2°° latt 
10. ess avtov (pro em avTov) BD fami13a dl and vg in 
ipso, 6 in eo, against all the rest and the sympathising 
cursives. W seems to have changed eic to en at the time 
it was written. Sod follows Hort for es. 
iv. 1. oyAos wAecoTos pro oxos ToAUs NBCLA and only these plus 
W 892 W-H Sod. Possibly from an original turba multa multa 
(this redupl. is quite common), but cf. Matt xiii. 2 at the parallel 
where zras 0 oydos is used. mdevoros is unusual, occurring only 
in the Gospels at Matt. xi. 20 ae wrecorar Suvapets avtov and 
Matt. xxi. 8 o S¢ mAetoros oydos. As W joins exceptionally 


78 


Mark 


21. 

vii. 6. 
vill. 10. 
x. 80. 


37. 
xi. 2. 


xii. 80. 


xiv. 10. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


I should think multa multa must have stood in the copies. 
(See note to John vii. 39 in Part II). Nor do I need to be told 
that this is far-fetched, because in the very next words W 
“gives away’ a purely latin reading known only from $e which 
have ad litus for ev rn Oadacon (primo loco) while W has rapa 
tov aiyiadov. D has only wepay rns Oaracons and 131 rapa 
thy Garacoav, d = circa mare, a circa litns maris, c ff, proxime 
litus, 2° = emi rn Oadacon and g super mare. 

In secundo loco where most have mpos tnv Oaraccay, but D* 
mepav tTns Sarason (a a | g circa mare), W has ev tw avyiarw 
with bce f ff; in litore. 


. oTretpat (pro tov omeipas) N*BWT° Sod et W-H [Sod txt] 


Cf seminare id?! et d (om D8") 


. Wpocexuvyncev avtov (pro mp. avtw) BACLA 892 al. d [contra 


De} 6 et latt copt (et W-H Sod) 


ey Tow (— Tw) B 447 soli inter gr. et vg et f & 
[contra copt et NW rell ev tw Trow, sed om ev tw TAoLw D it?"] 
> 0 Aaos ovtos BD 372 Laura4)4 latt against all 
others as well as W and copt. Not followed by W-H Sod tzt. 
--autos (post e4Bas) B*! 372 W-H mg, -+-avtos ante euBas 
bdr, et D k ipse ascendit 
Conv atoviay B* Cf vitam aeternam 
—cov sec. BWDAW5S 2° Sod'*3 bc fi gisk qr 


exabioey (pro xexafixev) NBCLAYV. No doubt on account 
of sedit all Latins. Only Sod%*-5 2r¢ 604 892 Paris” and 
Evst 36 join V in supporting NBCLA. Soden txt refuses it. 
—Ts ante xapdias 
—T7S 4, Wuyns B™ vid 
—Tns ,, Stavotas 

This is quite striking. D*XW omit the first one only. 
—o (ante wcxaptwrns) N*BC*DW 22 fam 13 [non 124] 28 440 
Laura Sodlia Orig, against sah boh and the rest and refused 
by Sod. 


(But immediately after NBC*LMW have o els (for cfs) accepted 


21. 


xv. 15. 


27. 


by Sod with boh (mi0%&1) against sah o-ea. and latt : unus) 
—7 (post xarov) BL ed W 892 ¢ f,i lg aur vg ® but 
refused by Sod. Neither VY nor Paris” omit and none of the 
others, not even 2°", The e (si) following may have been 
confused for e (est) ‘“‘xadov avtw et ove eyevvnbn” but the 
Latins who omit nv say “ bonum illi si non esset” (fuisset q). 
To txavoy Trovew (pro To tk. monoat) B LauraA™ soli. Refused by 
W-H Sod. Cf lat satisfacere [sed d ff, k r™4 om claus cum De, 
et hiant be fi q, et a mutilus ab Pilatus autem. ..xv. 15]. 
estavpwcay (pro atavpovow) B 2° ¢ d ff, k nm (= tpomntere, 
hiant be fiqrr.) aur gat vg®", refused by W-H Sod. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 79 


Mark 
xv. 44. 39 (pro mada) sec loco BDW o* Sod“? soli vid. This 


corresponds to the yam... jam of the Latins. 
W goes as far as to repeat the reOynxev in the second place for 
ameO@avev of nearly all. D says teOvnxe (syr sin omits madav, and 2? 
2 1, omit the clause). 
xvi. 2. —ry (ante pa) BW1soliet[W-H]. Cf latt una vel prima. 
Soden holds rns peas, but his notes are confusing in the 
extreme. 


As to Coptic. 


i. 4. xnpyocwr (— cat) B 33 73 892 W-H sah boh™? [non al.] 

84. ra danpova Aakew B vid cum boh (hiat sah). The others 
have Aadew Ta datpoua, but D d latt syr sin aeth: avta Nadew 
- in the order of B, but more simply. 
37. Kat evpov avTov Kar rNeyovoww NBL 892 solt et W-H cum e 
boh*S aeth 

This is a very noteworthy place. All the sympathising 
cursives oppose and with the bulk of the uncials and boh?! have 
Kat evpovTes avrov rey., or as D lat syr arm goth sah nat ote 
evpov avtov rAey. Tisch records b ¢ for ‘nil nist dicentes.” 
To these two Old Latin witnesses add the new W®, and it will 
be seen that NBL 892 ¢ are left completely alone with boh +: 

and aeth. 

To insist that these doh codices and aeth got it from NBL is to do 
violence to the other passages witnessing to quite the contrary course. 
A curious and innate sympathy then remains here between these three 
boh codices aeth and NBL e, while W breaks loose from ¢ here, and with 
b ¢ gives us much the shortest text. 

1. 39. 7Adev (pro nv) NBL Sod 892 sah boh aeth W-H Sod 
against all else and syr latt arm goth. The “erat praedicans”’ 
is not very pretty in Latin, and yet the Latins held it. I am 
convinced that 7A@ev is sheer improvement by NBL. Even 
33 and Paris” desert them, and they had upheld them in two 
violent changes in verse 88. Why on earth should ‘“ Antioch” 
have substituted mv for 4\Oev? N goes further and after 
nrOev substitutes xnpyccevy for xnpvecwy with boh. 

ii. 1. —xar (ante nxoven) NBL 28 33 124 [non fam] 2?° 604 

Paris” W-H Sod. ac sah boh arm. 
2. —evbews NBLW 38 604 Paris” 892 W-H (non Sod) 
b gal ry vg sah boh arm aeth syrs (contra D rell qui saepe 
im ch. 1 evbews om.) 





t For consider aeth at i. 84 where aeth goes with syr sin Dd and all Latins; at i. 11 
where it goes with a (f goth); at i. 15 with syr pesh; at i. 21 where it steers its own 
course ; ab i. 29 with 3; ati. 38 with syr sin. 


80 CODEX B AND ITS ADLIES,. 


Mark 
Gi. 4, mpoceveyeae NBL Sod (38) 63 253 872 892 Evst 48 f 1 vg 


(offerre contra accedere it) sah boh aeth. This is an important 
place. D with the rest and it syr has mpoceyyicas (a few 
eyyioat) and W apocedOev. As to 28 2”¢ 604 Paris” they con- 
tradict flatly NBL copt and have mpoceyy:caz. "W seems to be 
retranslating accedere of the Old Latin. Sod refuses rpoceveycar. 
7 init. ott (prot) B Sod™ p** only. Cf ors t of sah boh with 
the usual introductory xe. Also syr. [But see ix. 11, 28.] 

16. Kast (ot) ypappatess Tov haptoatwr (pro Kat ot-ypap. Kat ov pap.) 
read by NBLAW 33 28 124 (against the rest) b copt (not syr) 

The points which particularly appeal to me in such passages are the 
opposition in the fam 13 group and the absence of such controlling Mss 
as fam 1 157 2°° [Soden quotes 93'??] 604 892 Paris*®”. 

Here, where Tisch. quotes copt (‘‘ita certe cop! cop*tdetd”’) we 
must correct from Horner. Sah reads xat ot gap. (i.e. “with the 
pharisees ’’) and only the doh mss A,F*?0 are reported for tov dap. This 
is important. For if while considering Egyptian or Alexandrian influence 
on NB we are likely to be held up and the point made that NB influenced 
the coptic versions instead of vice versa, we point to a passage like this 
where the Egyptian versions refused to be influenced ; at any rate a trace 
remains only in two bohairic mss and possibly in the first hand of a third. 

ii. 17. + ore (ante ov xpeav) BA Sod®? § 2° LauraA! Sod* sah boh. 

Absolutely no others yet greedily seized by Sod [W-H**]. 
This is noteworthy for it is followed five words further by : 
ibid. adrda(proarr’) BWsolicumsah boh (morecopt),refused by Sod. 

18. 04 de cor (—pabnra) B sol cum 127 2° boh”!, refused by Sod. 

This therefore establishes an absolute relationship between 
B and coptic (= boh"'*) in vv. 17 and 18. 

22. amodAuTai Kat ot acxot B 892"4 only, and so exactly boh. No 
others, but accepted by W-H Sod. This among a very com- 
plicated number of changes in the account of the wine and 
bottles is most striking, coming right after the minutiae 
noticed above. 

iii. 6. edsdouv pro emotouy BL fam 18 28 2°° 604 Sod only with 
boh?:2419, adopted by W-H and Soden. 
This is interesting (and cannot be classed beyond under 
“Synonyms ’’) because the syriac can lend itself to either inter- 
pretation and is indeterminate (rendered ceperunt by syr'™). 
I hardly think it is fair to suggest that edvdouy is “ neutral” ; 
rather is it a correction. Notice that S is absent, reading 
with CA Sod 2°° eromoav. The latins and d use faciebant 
(qg iniebant). Paris®’ eovovy with most. D* @ qovovvtes. W 
Sod emotovvto. As to the coptic, notice A,O again come in 
for ed:douv as they did above for rar dapicaiwy (ii. 16). 
892* is uncertain with evoncay in the margin. 


Mark 


iil. 


8. 


15. 


Bo. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 81 


rove (proevove) BL W-H (none of the sympathising cursives) 
and sah bohimae against ND and the rest +W2®. 
—Ocparrevew Tas vorovs Kat NBC*LA 892 2”° sah boh, against 
all else [none of the other sympathising cursives nor Latin nor 
Syriac nor Arm. nor Goth] yet followed by T Tr W-H Rev 
and Soden tzt. Observe aeth which evidently put the clause 
in after considerable research, for aeth adds it after exPadrew 
ra datpovia instead of before the clause. This is not necessarily 


‘ex Matt x. 1. 


The community of Egyptian origin for NBLA is hereby 
set forth, and the “neutral’’ text transferred bodily to 
Alexandria, and I claim that the ‘‘ neutral” text is part of a 
revision by the Alexandrian School and not a survival of 
Apostolic days. Here NBC*LA are supported not by a single 
Greek cursive [except 2°° (against 604) 892], not by any syriac 
or arm., not by any Latin, but by all the mss of the sah and 
boh which we know. 

In boh I may point out that there might be confusion and 
exclusion from similarity of appearance between quors, and 
cyuorti (infirmus). See Horner's note in boh as to addition by 
codd. F°G*. 

The new Codex W* does not omit, and adds after Satyoua 
end of verse xat wepiayovtes Knpucoty To evayyedtov. The place, 
folio 319, is worth study, for no otvyos space is found between 
vooous and cat exBarrev, While there is one between dapoma 
and the addition. 

— yap B be boh et W-H tat [non Sod} 


iv. 21. +o7e (ante wnt) BL 892 soli = copt+xe. Accepted by 


W-H, refused by Sod. 
Fam 18 and 28 add isere. The rest all omit. 


The sentence runs: cas edeyey auto [ore] pte epyetae (amtetae D 
laté) 0 AuyvOS Wa VIO Tov podtoy TEA. 

Is it possible to imagine that BL preserve the original and that al/ others, 
including the other important sympathising cursives, have dropped it ? 
More likely again BL show Egyptian or Alexandrian minds or eyes at work. 

iv. 34. Kau xwopes (pro yopis de) BOA 604 (sole inter gr-lat) cum sah 


syr pesh aeth boh” but refused by both W-H and Sod. 


v. 42. «au eLerrncay tevbus NBCLA 33 892 [non al. min] boh aeth 


Vi. 


2. 


8. 


W-H Sod txt [contra DW rell et latt sah sy]. 

+ ou (ante Todor) BL fam 13 [non 124] 28 [non W] 892"" 
sah bohmattor (sy emph) W-H Sod txt [Non Paris™ non &]. 

Very strange if this of should have been cut out of all other 
texts, including N [V does not begin until ch. ix]. 
>pn aprov pn wnpav NBCLA Sod%413 33 892 Paris” boh 
[non sah] aeth W-H Sod [contra W et D et rell omn et sah et 
monn rell omn|. 


82 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Mark 
= vi. 9. This is instantly followed by adda for adn’ (before-virodedeyevous, 


forming a hiatus) ex more copt by NABCDLUN® 28 scr’? 
Paris®’, but W is careful to write ad)’ and insert an apostrophe ! 
11. This is again shortly afterwards followed by a pure coptic 
form. For observe that coptic is always precise. It does not 
say wot or guo but always zn loco quo. So here: 
os av toTros pn SeEnras NBLA*W fam 13 28 W-H Sod is 
found in boh (sah) aeth vg", while the others have: os av py 
deEntas C (fam 1) and AD and the large majority ooo av py 
deEeovrat, latt etc. W here apparently shares the bohairic 
influence against the Latins, but as e is missing now we cannot 
be sure that it did not have it. A Latin trace remains in 
vg™ only, 72 is missing and only begins again at vi. 14. 
20. —xat (ante cuvernpet) B™ cum sah 1/3 (= sah”) 

The previous places have all considerable importance and should be 

observed carefully for they lead up to: 

vi. 20. nope. (pro ero) NBL Sod (and W nopevro) sah boh, 
against all the rest, against the friendly cursives, and against latt 
syrr and aeth yet willingly incorporated by W-H & Sod texts. 

The Semitic wodAa emoves appears to have offended the early 

Alexandrian recensors of Greek and Coptic texts. But this clear coptic 
adherence against all else destroys “neutrality” for NBL and for W 
here.t See also the parallel in Luke. 


Mark 
vi. 27. eveyxas (pro eveyOnva) NBCA* 892 copt W-H [non Sod] 


against all else and DW as well as L and Latt adferri. (See 
under ‘“‘Change of voice”). 8 over A& has “‘adferri vel adduci.” 
40. xara bis (pro ava bis) NBD 21 boh et W-H Sod tat. 
vil. 4. pavticwrtas (pro Bamricwvtat) SB min® sah Huthym. See 
under ‘“‘ Improvement.” - 
6. +-ore (ante ovtos o Xaos) NBL 872 892 LauraA'! boh sah 
(syr) W-H Sod tat [non Paris*"] 
16. Om vers boh [non sah] cum NBLA 28 [non W rell] W-H, non Sod. 
29. See under “‘ Order.” 
387. +s post remounxev BY W-H™ (boh), ef sah + guoce et boh*l4 
Vili. 2. mpocpevover (— por) B* cum baht tribus (Cf latt wde ecw) 
3 fin. cow (pro neacw vel neovaw) BLA 892 sah 1/5 bohweattur 
W-H [non Sod, non al. nec latt syr] 
4, +-orte (ante rodev) BLA 115 892 Paris®’ sah boh [non al.| 
W-H & Sod.t 





t It is exceedingly important to distinguish and appreciate this overlying coptic 
influence on W. I have observed that soon after the beginning of ch. v. W began to 
drift away from ¢. Since vi. 8 e is missing, but we have seen above (vi. 11) the same 
overlying Egyptian influence on W. Probably from vy. onwards W used another graeco- 
coptic ms. 

} Observe Soden’s thoroughly Alexandrian mind, adopting this but refusing the same 
gToup above. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 83 


Mark 
In view of varying treatment here by others (see Tisch and 


evidence) this seems purely “‘ Egyptian.” 
Vill. Q9—0o dayovres (See under “ Improvement.”’) 
20. +avre (ante erra fin) BCLA 892 Sod" [non tut] boh sah aeth 
Q1. voecte (pro cuviete)  B 872 Sod 4 sed De* cuvvoere 
This is rather a curious place. At first sight it looks simply 
harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11 where voevre is used, but the cvvvoerre of 
Ds may be meant for ovv voevre, and ovy is present in some Greeks 
(fam 13) and in sah, but there it is GE not ors as it would be in boh 
if present there, where it does not find a place. The boh word for 
ouverte i8 TeTenasfi but in sak =htverhinoer It seems clear 
therefore that B may have seen this toes in a close parallel column and 
written voecre by mistake rather than have recollected or borrowed from 
St. Matthew. 
Mark 
viii. 23. Brees (pro Brere)  BCDsAs Sod 372 ave Paris” sah boh 
aeth (strengthened by syr sin diatess) but against all else. 
W writes Srere, and 28 after hesitating (and doubtless consulting 
his authorities) decides to do likewise; so does Sod txt against W-H. 

vili. 28, --ore (ante cwavvnv) NB copt (ut solet) (sy) et W-H txt 
contra rell et latt omn. Clearly from copt yet Sod txt has [orz]. 
ibid. tore (ante es) NBC*L 892 copt (at solet) (syr) W-H Sod tat 

(latt pl quasi unum, as eva D, sed Gr?! et W eva tantum). 
35. Tnv eavtov ~uyny (pro Tyv Wruynv avtov prim)  B 28 copt (ut 

solet) Orig W-H tut. No others. 
37. +0 (ante avOpwres) B*! cum sah et boh. Why do W-H 

avoid ? 

x. 1. +xas (ante repay) NBC*LY 892 sah boh (against mrepav 
others and latin, and 8a tov mepay others, xa dia tov Tepav 
Laura), So W-H, and Sod in square brackets. Latter 
omits copt. 

6. ~o deos NBCLA [non WV] Sod” ¢ 6 [non ff, male Sod.] sah boh 
W-H [non al. latt gr non syr arm aeth] cf Matt xix. 
24. ~rovs merowWoras emt (rots) ypnuacw NBWAW & sah boh 
(aeth) [contra rell syr sin et Clem**] Cf Merx ad loc. p. 122 seq. 
26. NeyovTes mpos auToy (pro Ney. pos EeavTovs) NBCAYV 892 
Sod™! § sah boh W-H, non Sod [contra rell et W et latt syr 
acth arm goth (om mp. avt. Clem ut Matt Luc) | 
As Tisch says “at nusquam apud Mec Acyew mpos twa.” He 
accordingly retains mpos eavrous in his text. Not so W-H, who of course 
follow the little “Egyptian” (not “neutral”’) group. Souter’s R-V also 
leaves avrov in the text, but places eavrovs in the sub-margin. 

x. 29. >» pntepa n warepa BCA et W® [non VY] Sod’, 61 106 2° 
604 Sod™= only of minuscules, ¢ f g only of Latins, with sah 
boh order against the rest and Orig*", but followed by Sod tat. 

35. ov dv0 vuos (pro vios vel ot viot) BC Paris soli cum sah boh aeth. 
G 2 


84 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


This is against ND rell omn vid and W®Y and Orig with syr lat 
arm. It is a clear improvisation from the account in Matthew (xx. 20 seq) 
where the mother comes, but it does not say there ‘“‘ with her two sons” f 
but in verse 21 only does she ask ‘“‘ that her two sons..” B is convicted 
here of running with a coptic error against N and Orig. How many 
more instances of this kind must I adduce before the worshippers of B 
and the obsequious slaves of Hort will allow that I am right? Coptic 
and BC no more got this from a common original with coptic than B obtained 
his avwvay in verse 30 from an original.t{ B and coptic conspired to add 
évo, and B wanted to exhibit the real gender of Swrv in verse 30. Because 
the unfortunate and erring ms C supports B here in verse 35, Hort places 
dvo in his text in square brackets. Can any system be more vicious ? 
Not even L or V is found to support BC copt, and even A pulls away 
from the harmonising consortium of BC. AY really belong to the base 
NBL, so that their defection here is absolutely conclusive. Nor is the not- 
able cursive 892 recorded by Harris nor Soden’s other mss for this +dvo. 


Mark 


x. 87. >aov ex defiov (pro ex SeEtwv cov) NBC*LAY 892 boh [non 
sah] 8. In the second clause boh repeats cou c£ apiotepov L™, 
cov e€ evovupwv N*, against most «£€ evwvupwr cov, but BDA 
and WW 1 [non fam] 2°° Sod'*** omit the second cov with 
bed ff2 92% k (om bis) g § vg? 8 vg®?. It may be worth while 
to exhibit here boh and sah, which differ, as boh goes with 
NBC*LAY in the first place : 

boh OANA NTE OVI PERKCI CATEKOVINARR OCOD, OCSI 
SLALOM CATEKXZON Hen mMeKwors 

sah XEKAC EPE OCA BRAROM SD RKOOC I OTNA LR RKRLLOK 
ACW OFA OF DROCP BRALOK 9,2e Tleooe NTEKAR- 
TEpo. 

46. cherie (pro mpoca:twy vel erratov) (N)BLAY 892 k and boh 
Sod tat (contra Merx p. 130) but against the rest and against sah. 

AT. extw (post tncovs) B 273 Paris®” Sod sah (et syr), contra 

N rell omn et boh lati™. 

49, evrev * hwvncate avtov (pro emev avtov pornOnvar) NBCLAY 7 
892 Sod'** k § and boh only W-H Sod txt, against the rest and 
sah specifically and Origen. Here in two places within three 
verses we see B with sah and then with boh, as so often. 
Instead of a B text governing the joint base of boh sah, it 
would appear that B consulted both coptic versions, and 
possibly if we had the third coptic version we should see 
other points of sympathy there. 

xi. 1. Aydpayn B Cf. sah 1/5 Ruadaxn (sah 4/5 Ruedate) 

xii. 19. > nae pn adn texvov NBCLAY 83 892 Paris’ Sod™* ff, sah 


t But pera ray viev avrns. Only U 7, add dvo there. 
t See under “ Change of Gender.” 


Mark 


xi. 27. 


B IN ST. MARK'S GOSPEL. 85 


[xo bok] (syr sin). See remarks above. This order opposes 
everything else, and is refused by Soden text. But why? 
“aokv wAavacde” NBCLWAW 892* Sod “8 & sah boh 
against everything else including 33 and Paris” and verss: 
“ yuets ovv modu TrAavacbe.” Here Sod encloses vers ovy in 
square brackets, 


38. Out of three deliberate and distinct recensions NBLAY 892 


35. 


(cas ev tn Si6axn avtov edeyev) follow boh (against sah). So 
also Sod txt. See under “ Two or more recensions in Mark.” 


. be6 (—yap) N*BWY soli vid., sah boh syr pesh™4 against 


all else and Paris” and syr sin pest. Sod|yap]. No new 
evidence. 

Why should we attribute this to coptic influence and not to 
a common base? Because at: 


. SBL(W)Y (28) elide both copulas ecovta: cevcpou.. .ecovTat 


ALwot, Which is simply the coptic manner. It appeals to Soden. 


. —es Thy o1iay =NBULYV 245 892 Sod ck sah boh syr pesh (non 


sin]. See under “Improvement.” (This does not appeal to 
Soden). 
aryyehos (pro ov ayyeAos vel ov ayyedot 01.) B*! et W-H™. This 
is a very pretty place and one of the few where we can swear 
that B saw the coptic and was influenced by it. In the first 
place observe that NDKLUW?S and some twenty-five minus- 
cules write oc ayyehko. In the second place note that all the 
rest, 2.e. twelve uncials plus W®YV and minn, with sah, write 
ov ayyedou ot. B then did not get this from sah although both 
sahidic and bohairic plurals do not change their termination, 
and in sak we read owae Harreadcc eTg,it The ovae 
TiayHpe e¢c. B could not have been copying sak or he would 
have seen the et in eT ott following, which corresponds to 
the of following ayyedo: in most Greeks. What was B doing? 
Well it may be that sah influenced bok for a singular, for 
boh, instead of sah’s owae Narreaoc etc, has simply owae 
arreaoc Aen the. At any rate B agrees with five or 
six codices of the bohairic alone here (with Aug lbere). 
Whatever may be said of our other examples I pray the gentle 
critic and benevolent reader to ponder this very specially. Nor 
can it be said to me that these bohairic codices were following 
B. I deny it utterly. For in the very next verse B omits xat 
mpocevxerbe, which no coptic Mss do. And B is alone here with 
Dacdk against all else but one poor little cursive 122 which 
stands out thus like a lost sheep, apart from 1 18 28 157 2° 604 
892 Paris” Laura4! which with V and W go against BD here. 
Yet W-H om. «at mpocevyecbe, and have ayyedos in margin, 
Consult xiv. 18 beyond as to coptic methods by B. 
(See under ‘‘ Improvement.’’) 


86 


Mark 


xiv. 3. 


7. 
10. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


cuvtpupaca (—Kxar) NBLYW boh. All the rest have the copula. 
Hven D 2” with «as Opaveaca, and syr pesh et aperuit, and sah 
ae, yet Sod txt [no new mss] omits car as well as W-H. 
+-mavrote in sec loco ~BULN°¥ 892 LauraA™ solt cum sah boh. 
6 els (pro els) NBC*LMY 892 = doh miowar against sah 
(ova) (But immediately before N*BC*DW?3 13 28 440 
Laura4™ Orig omit o before scxapiwrns with Laté against 
sah and boh.) 


18 fin. tev exOtovrwy pet epou( pro o ecOiwv per euov) B* cum sah 


20. 


boh. [ Von Soden omits boh, but adduces no new Greek evidence}. 
This, coupled with the places at viii. 37, xiii. 82, noticed 
above, is absolutely conclusive that B saw the Coptics. They 
alone have the matter thus in the plural. Not one Latin even, 
as far as I can see, has manducat. All have the verb in the 
singular. And all Greeks, including W and the friendly V, 
make no change. 
-e NBCL et WYI min" 4 e¢ 892 [non 28 non Paris] sah 
boh. The presence of W here (against 28) may be due to 
coptic. The other seventeen uncials with all /att (which have 
to render ex) and syr oppose with ex. 


ibid fin. Observe the strange (but for possible support of C*? 


21. 


24. 


35. 


40. 


50. 


Sod°* 2°*) EICTOENTPYBLION for es To tpuBrALov by B. Tisch 
says ‘‘evs To ev TpuBALov (sive evtp.)” but there is no such word 
as evtpvBrov. The hand which went over B has added a 


smooth breathing over EN, but Westcott and Hort read it as 
év, and actually place this in the text in square brackets. 
May it not be due to an error oculi from the coptic column 
Hen fun the €N coming directly before ro tpvArov 
there ? 
We cannot neglect the possibility of the previous point, when we 
see immediately following at the head of this verse the intro- 
ductory coptic xe followed by NBL 892 Paris” only seized 
again by Soden’s Alexandrian mind. (W does not have it, yet 
it conflates vraye and trapadidoras immediately afterwards). 
To exyuyvopevoy virep ToAAwy NBCL et WV 892 (sol. inter 
minn) sah boh aeth W-H & Sod tat. 
To virep (vel rept) Tod@y exyvvvopevov D unc et WEP minn 
omn vid, latt syr. 
emtrrey (pro emesev) NBL 892 boh [non sah] W-H & Sod 
tat. See under “ Historic present” (imperfect). 
> avtwv ot opGarpot (pro ot off. avtrwv) NBCLA et BY Sod 
108 115 127 238 e®* 892 Paris*” LauraA!! Sod" sah boh (more 
copt, non “ex more Marci” ut Tisch). Against them are all the 
rest and W and the Latins and Syriac. (See below xiv. 65). 
For xat apevtes avtov travtes epvyov of D, most Greeks (syr) 
sah and latt (as Matthew), the order is changed by NBCLAV 


It is 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 87 


61 258 435 892 Paris®” Laura’ zser Hser Sod*i4 goth boh to «at 
adevtes avtov epuvyov martes, adopted by Sod. 
noteworthy as exhibiting this well-known group of uncials 


hanging together with boh against sah. 
(For the variations see Horner’s note in sah.) The new ms W is 
with D and the mass and sah against bok. 


xiv. 60. 
61. 


65. 


ott (pro Tt) BWY soli et W-H™ (cf. boh xe) 

ov« atexpwato ovdev NBCLY 33 892 LauraA™ sah both aeth 
Orig 1/2 W-H Sod, against ovSev amexp. of the rest and W 
Orig 1/2. 

>avtov To tpocwrov §=NBCLUAY 33 108 127 892 Paris” 
Sodmwe cont (See above xiv. 40) Sod follows both here and 
above. 


68 fin. Om. NBLWY 892 Paris” Hust 17 ¢ boh sah syr sin [non 


69. 


xv. 12. 
. mapedwxev Se Tov w deay. B Sod'**and boh alone. See under 


36. 
39. 


i, 2. 
24, 


ii, 22. 


Tisch 


Sod]. See under “ Harmonistic.” 
evrey (pro npEato Aeyev) Only B and sah boh aeth W-H™. 
Nothing else. Take a cross reference from this (in Matt. xxvi. 
71 Aeyer) and see under “‘ Harmonistic,” and if it does not give 
my readers a startling picture of a coptic conspiracy with B 
I shall be surprised. In these other places B has some little 
support. Here however B is in solitary grandeur with sah 
boh aeth and these alone. N deserts him, CLAY desert, W 
avoids it, D and all Latins contradict absolutely, and so do 
both syriacs. (Soden neglects to chronicle boh and aeth. 
This is careless for boh agrees absolutely, and this must be 
considered with xv. 15 below.) 

—Oerere See under ‘“‘ Harmonistic.”’ 


“NS and B differences’? in Part II for the three 
varying orders. 


. —mev NBC*LAW 604 Sod" n boh arm syr sin Cyr™* (against 


the rest and sah, all other Latins extant and syr and aeth). 
— Kas (ante yeutcas) BLY [non minn vid] ¢ (fz) vg®™ boh (sah) 
—xpakas NBL et VW 892 copt W-H Sod txt. (See 
** Improvement.”) 


. +7 (ante woo. wntnp) BY 181? soli et (sah boh) 


Latin and Coptic. 


— eye BD Sod 2°¢ latt sah 3/4 

Neyou (—ea) NBDWA Sod 28* 157 372 2° latt syr aeth boh 

(hiat sah) [Habent 604 Paris” rell une et 2® Orig Eus** Cyr’ 

pnéet (pro pnoce) NBCDLI: Sod’ 33 892 2° latt alig et sah 
[non boh] W-H tat [non Sod] Cf Luc v. 37 

asks if other cursives besides 33 give the future. Apparently 


88 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


only 2° and 892. The rest all have the present, and W gives the passive, 
retaining the present tense Scappyocovrat ot acxot. 
ar 


iii. 9. wAovapsa (pro maovaptov) B' cum sah. [Sod omits sah]. I 
place this here under Coptic and Latin, because the Latin “ut 
navicula (most omit im) deseruiret’”’ may be responsible. 

iii. 18. tov cavavacov NBCDLA 33 372 2°* Paris Sod) + &* late 
(0 xavaveos W = boh wuK&mtaneoc) contra Kavavirns sah et 
‘Gr rell et Sod 28 157 604 892 etc. arm goth. 

6. See under “ Latin.” 

9. rey. ovopa pot +eatwv B (D) fam 13 238 372 lati! sah boh 

2. mpoopevovet (— 00) Be! cum boh*s Cf D wéde aow et 
d ex quo hic sunt. 

33. —Tw(antewerpw) NBDL 21 only (non al. minn vid) W-H & Sod. 

ix. 8. peta eavtwr post «doy (instead of jin) B 33 Paris cf and sah 
(syr sin) W-H, non Sod. 
As it does not appear in Matt. xvii. 8 (except that 33 inserts there) 
it may have been early deleted from Mark and then added in the margin 
whence B copied into the wrong place, or else may mean sympathy with 
sahidic order, but bo keeps the usual order. 
x. 28. yKorovOnxapev (pro nKxorovbncapev) BCDW Sod’ (Sod™) 
lat copt 
This follows adynxaypev and is probably alliterative as well. If 
nKorovOnxapuev be “neutral” then all the rest of the Greeks have fallen 
into a curious error! Even Soden recognises this. 
x. 43. (pr loco) eotw (pro ecta) NBC*DLAWY Sod*** iz! copt 
x1. 17. qwemotnxate (pro eroncate) BLAY Orig only W-H & Sod tat 


Vv. 


Viil. 


xiv. 40. waduy eAOwv evpev avrovs NBLY 892 copt ¢ [non Sod] 
Kat ew evpev avTous Dacd fir k 
against vroctpeyras eupev avtous Tad W reli pi. 


fxv. 1. rpae NBCDL ct V3 Sod* 46 892 Sod" 2° latt boh Orig 
[for ems to mpwr g A unc et WX minn et 604 Paris” syr arm 
goth W-H & Sod (k* e mane) ] 
Sah aeth and ¢ = cum autem mane factum esset 
8. avaBas NBD 892 latt copt goth, against avaBonoas of the 
rest and even A®IiW and V all minn (but 892), syr arm and 
diatess, while k omits, and aeth conflates. 


Traces of Syriac. 
tii. 17. ovopa (pro ovopata) BD®* 28 225 271 syr (boh™™) W-H 


[non Sod] t 
iv, 20. —e sec et tert B" cum 3 (Cf syr pesh, hiat sin) 
22 fin. pavepwOn B*' et (sah syr pesh) 
v. 2. —evdews BW Sod» [non ND d reli] sed 


syrbesh sin ners 1/2 et bce fo t vg® 


+t Tisch omits the evidence of 2°. } Cf. Merz, pp. 40, 41. 


Mark 


x. 47, 


xv. 40. 


Mark | 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 89 
cotw trsfert post uoovs B® cum 273 Sod Paris’ syr pesh 


syr sin (et sah) 
papa n payd. BCWYW fam 1 syr W-H [non Sod]. 


Form. 


88. e&nOov NBC: Sod 33 179 Paris” Sod! et Sod txt. Al. 


in. 25. 


ii, 12. 


et D& e€edndv0a, vel edmrvda WAG! 28 892 al. et latt et d. 


. This is followed by nev pro nv by NBL Sod** 892 [not even 


33 or Paris®’] sah bok aeth against all else and the other syr 
arm goth versions, which are solid for nv. To show that this 
is coptic reaction consider the unique «npucow of N following 
(for xnpvccwv)=boh. But Soden swallows n\Gev as W-H. 


. duvn (pro Suvaca) B. This presupposes that every other 


Greek has changed Suvy or Suva to dvvaca. Soden’s 

sympathetic Sinai mss do not join. See below, ix. 22/23. 

atnvat (pro otabnvat) BL 892 Paris” and so W-H Sod txt, 
but apparently no other support. 


. otnvae NBCL Sod 213 892 and W-H Sod (om claus ornvas 


.. .ornvat Paris” ex homoiotel.) 


. TapatiOwaw N*BLM*WAITI Sod e¢ tat, wapabwow D rell. 
. THPNTE B Bust 15 (pro tnpnonte) ; otnante D alig. 

. novvacbn NB only with Sod™ for nduvnOn. 

. Tapatiwot NBCLMA 872 892 al? Sod tat (rell rapa8wor) 
. bra NBFEFLWY 2” W-H & Sod (evrov rell et Paris’) 
3. duvy pro duvacas bis See under ‘‘ Change of Mood.” 

. Suvopeda B 

, Kare Bovtes B (Cf Lue vii. 33) 

. emeSarav XB 

. eyyapevovew (pro ayyapevovow) N*B* scr? [non W-H Sod] 


(D has aryap... here). This is almost purely a N.T. word. 
Only & at Matt. v. 41 changes to evyap. At Matt. xxvii. 32 
nyyapevoay is used by all (including NB) except D nvyap..., L 
nyap., and some min nyxap. It does not occur outside of these 
three passages. 


Synonyms. 


eumpoabev (pro evavtiov) NBLW 187 mg 604 892 Paris” 
only, while evw7iov is read by @'@ Sod 8 28 33 511 Hvst 29 
Laura‘ !, and evavriov by the mass and D. (eumpooOev evavtiov 
Sod™1), 


If the original Latin coram is primitive and antecedent it will 
account for this more clearly than any “ provincial”’ preferences. 
Here coram is absolutely constant in all Latins.. But observe 


90 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


elsewhere what happens when the Greek is paramount (this list is 


quite imperfect) : 
Luke v.19. Gr. eumpocdev ante lati! et vg, coram 4, in con- 
spectu a d 
xii. 8. eumpoodey coram Jatt” et vg, in conspectu d 
9. evwrriov vel evrrpoobev D al. coram Jatt, in conspectu d 
xiv. 2. ewmpoobev avrou ante illum /até, apud ipsum e, pre- 
sente illo 5, in conspectu ejus d 
xix. 4. ess To eumpoobev Variant plur latt 
27. ewmrpocbev pov ante me lati?! ef vg, coram me e, in 
conspectu meo a d 
xxi. 36. eumpooGer Tov viov Tou avouv ante fil. hom. laté! vg, in con- 


spectu fili hom. df 


Jo. X. 4. eumpocbev avrwy rropeverat ante eas vadit lati" et vg, coram eas 
vadit 5, praecedit eas r 


xii. 87. eumrpoorbev avTwy coram eis laté®' et vg, in conspectu 
eorum d f (r) 

Lukei. 6. evaytiov (vel evwmtov) ante lati et vg, ante faciem e, in 
conspectu d f Hier 

xxiv. 19, evavtiov (evwmtov D) coram latt?'etvg,in conspectucde Aug 

Act vii.10. evayriov (vel evayrt) in conspectu latt™ et vg, ante gig, 
coram d 

viii. 32. evavriov coram lat¢*' et vg, ante Iren 1/2 Tert, 
in conspectu ren 1/2 

Lukei. 15. evaziov coram lat#?! et vg,in conspectu a dIren 

17. evwmov ante lati! et vg, in conspectu, a d 
Iren Ambr, coram Tert 

19. evwzrvov ante lati” et vg, in conspectu a df, 
om ff. 


This will be sufficient without going further to show what I mean. 
But I do not know whether I have made the matter clear. The point is 
that an original Latin coram in Mark ii. 12 may have given rise to the 
two Greek readings, while coram is constant among the Latins. But in 
the other Gospels and Acts the Greek rarely varies whereas two or three 
varieties are to be observed among the Latins throughout. 


Note also : 
Mark xii. 41. awevavts BUY 33 Paris” Sod" xatevaytsXD unc! et W2P 
(xatevwrriov 138-346-556.) 

and ver. 36. viroxatw (pro vrotrodiov) BD®T4 WY 28 Sod'**" sah boh syr sin 
uTroTrodvov N rell et ct et d et rell verss et LXX. 
This is quite an important place. For B makes several other 
changes in this verse. It omits ev before tw mvevpati, omits o before 
xupios, and substitutes alone «a@soov for xafov. Hort makes a positive 
caricature of the L.XX quotation, following B even to the placing of B’s 

unique ca@:cov in his margin. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 91 


uroxatw here is read in Matt., but vromodiov by Luke and the LXX 
and by all Latins in Mark. 


Mark 
xv. 46. pvnuwate (pro pynuew) NB, contra rell omn et W2V minn. 


(Xvl. 2. prnua (pro pynwecov) NC (W 2°) Hes™, contra rell omn, 
cof v.38) 


Omission from Homoioteleuton. 
Mark 


xv. 10 fin. —ov apyvepees B1 [non fam] 115 349 Paris” [non 892] 
Sod?? 3371225 Hyst 18 47 syr sin boh [non sah]. 

This is clearly an error from the repetition of the words at the 
beginning of the next verse. We have a nice check here of sah against 
boh, pesh against sin [hiat cu] and WV (besides all the other uncials) 
against B. W is so extremely friendly to B otherwise (and in this 
neighbourhood) that to me its witness is conclusive for the words, 
although they are put into square brackets by W-H. But this may be 
due to the omission in Matt. xxvii. 18. 

Mark 

vill. 17. ~ere by no less than NBCD"LNWA#®, Sod fam 1 28 33 124 
[non rel fam 13] 225 245 2° [non 604] Paris’ 892* a sah boh arm aeth 
[non syr sin pesh diatess non rell latt] 

This occurs from CYNIETEETINEMWPWMENHN and I claim that the 
omission is an error on the part of all these authorities, including B, for d@ 
goes against D, 6 goes against A, and syr sim with the other Latins 
witnesses against the Coptic. 

The opposite side of the picture is seen immediately after at 
Mark 


‘viii. 19, where 28 with fam 13 99 Sod?’ and b ¢ d ff i k add ous after 
aprouvs (APTOYC OYC €KAACA) against all the Greek uncials [except D 
“tous” borrowing from Latin]. These errors control themselves when we 
balance the evidence properly. 

Cf viii. 14 +quem post panem latt, but no Greeks which we know have 
APTONON. : 
xii. 86. —ev (post evrev) B®! cum 273 et Sod°™ (teste Sod contra ed. 
Beermann & Gregory). 


GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. 
Change of Voice. 


There is nothing surprising in attributing the changes of voice to 
Alexandrian revision. Observe how the ms W acts at times, eg. in the 
matter of the sons of Zebedee at Mark x. 35 where we are to read 
attnowpmeba instead of artncwpev B etc. (artrnoopev 8° [® omits clause] 
A, or epwrnowpev D I, 2°°), or at vi. 20 nrroperto W instead of the nope: 
of NBL (and ezrovec D reli). In these places W stands quite alone. 

vi. 27. eveyxas NBCA*® 892 copt (active) for eveyOnvac (passive) of 

DW and I and all the rest and Latt adferri (b auferri). 


92 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


As bearing on this matter of voices, perhaps it has something to do 
with retranslation. Observe that at Mark xiv. 14 for ¢déyo, DW 1-209 
fam 13 have gayoua and G 28 118 346 ddyouat. 


In St. 


Luke (xxii. 11) all have dayw without change. 


In St. Matthew xxvi. 18 the expression is ow (momow D d gq 
Orig. Cf. sah. It is impossible to divorce D from a coptic background). 


Mark 


iv. 29. 
xiv. 10. 


11. 


viii. 37. 


ix. 80. 


v. 43. 


Change of Mood. 


Tapabot (pro Tapadw) N*BDA Sod 28 2” [non W] 
(observe variations in boh mss here) 

mapadot (pro trapadw) BC*?W 28 (D poder) 
(observe variations in sah Mss here) 

tapas. ( pro tapado) BDW 

In these passages in ch. iv. and xiv. the sense is different, so 
that the change is purely that of the grammarian. 

In the first case in ch. iv. it is oray Se mapadou 0 Kaprros, 
in the second and third in ch. xiv. wa avrov tapade. avras (of 
Judas), and avtov evxatpws tapado.. 

So (proSmce) N*Band W-Htzt while NL and Sod tzt 
write dw. 

The sentence is (7) te yap woe (or Sw or Sor) avos avTad- 
Aaya THS Yruyys auToU; 

The Latins support dwce with dabit. The sah and boh are 
equally emphatic with a future indicative. 

Itremains for N°L Sod to give the subj.andN*B W-H theopta- 
tive against Origen. Whois revising here? [See fora change 
in the context under “Infinitive for the cay construction.’’] 
yvot (pro yvw) by NBDLC (cf sah) apparently no cursives, not 
even 892 Paris®’ nor 28 (me teste) nor 2°°, which have 
mapasot above at iv. 29. Surely this would not have been 
changed to yvw, if yvot were original. W does not join here 
but does at xiv. 10,11. Lake prints yv@ for V. 
yvou for yo by ABDLW Paris” [not 28 or others]. Westcott 
and Hort (ii. 168) treat this termination ov for w as conjunctive 
not optative, but see Moulton’s Winer, edition 1882, p. 360, 
note 2. And consult further: Luke i. 62 Oedor, Mark xi. 14 
gayot, Act xxv. 16 eyor. .Aa Bor, Act ii. 12 Perot (NE rell ; Pere 
ABCD), xvii. 18 @edou (all except D* 6cAn, four cursives Oer«u). 
Also: Act xxii. 24 emuyyw by all. And finally: 1 Thess v. 15 
amobéot N*D° (D* etiam arodomm) FG 
atrobw NABD°EKLP al. et Patres 

Also note Luke i. 4 of Theophilus wa ervyvos by S* alone. 
See Sir John Hawkins (‘Horae Syn.’ p. 53)...‘ It is well 
known that the optative was obsolescent in the ordinary Greek 
of N.T. times.” Therefcre is it not “revived” by B? Note 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 93 


also Luke xix. 15. yvou (pro yvw) NBDL 33 (against Origen). 
It should be observed that in this same verse NBDL 1-181 25 
157 employ Sedaxe for edwxe and Origen ededmxes, as if gram- 
matical consideration had obtained here.t This is further 
emphasised by a complete change from tis te dverrpayparevoato 
to te Scerpaypatevaavto by NB(D)L(R)3 157 d e copt aeth 

le (syr) in the same verse. f 

ar 


(ix. 22. e te Syn «=NBDILAWY Sod fam 1 273 [non 28 hoe loco. 
Errat Tisch] pro ev te Svvacar rell omn. 
23. toe Suvn = =9N*BD(— ro D Sod°)NAW (rovto pro to ut copt) 
= Sod fam 1 28(— ro 28) 892 pro to « Suvacas rell omn et V 
[om to KUII®] ) 

But this dvwvy may be merely a change of “form” of the indicative, 
and not the subjunctive. 

Anyway W shows consideration by having évvy ver 22 with the 
minority, but not in verse 23,t while Paris®” retains duvaca: in both places 
and is unfaithful here to NB. Fam 13 also holds 8uvaca: in both places. 

We cannot judge of singular places like this without a correct 
tabulation. For instance Tischendorf makes no cross-reference here to 
Mark i. 40, but if we turn back there we find B indulging in dvuvy for 
duvacat at that place and quite alone! Comment is unnecessary. With B it 
is simply a preference. 


Change of Tense. 


i. 82. educev (pro edu) BD 28 Sod®™ # [non Sod] W-H. 1st 
aorist for 2nd aor. 

ii, 5. aguevtas (pro adewvtat) B 28 33 2°° [non 604 Paris™ | 72?! syr 
goth sah boh against the rest and W2® rell and bf q. 

9. apuevtas NB 28 2°° boh (remittuntur ace fg. ff q) against 
agewvrat of the rest and 0 (remissa sunt). Cf sah “Thy sins 
will be forgiven thee,” showing Egyptian consideration of this 
passage. W-H and Soden follow NB. 

22. pn&e (pro pnoce:) See under “ Latin and Coptic.” 
iv. 1. cuvayeras (pro cuvnyOn) NBCLA fam 13 28 604 892 Sod 
(fam 1 cuvepyerar) against cvvny@n of the mass (and cuvnyPnoav 
A etc.) and the versions. W-H and Soden print cuvayeras. 
vi. 22. nperev (pro Kat aperacns) NBC*L(A) 33 ¢ ff, copt. This 
should probably come under ‘“ Coptic.” It is rejected by Soden‘. 
vili. 25. eveSremev (pro eveBreWev) N°BL 28 273 (WA fam 13 244 440 
syrrinty, 
Here we get an expressive imperfect (Alexandrian ? Note N* 
was corrected to it) and very unlikely to be dropped by the 
mass if it stood originally in the text. Soden accepts it. 





+ So Sodentst; while neglecting yo: and all previous optatives. Is it consistent? 
t¢ Thus reversing the attitude of 28, which latter would seem the more correct. 


94 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Change of Tense in participles. 


ME y.18, axoucarres (pro axovoyres) NBCDLA Sod 1 10 fam 13 28 
71 240 244 892 2°¢ Laura! [non Paris®"] Sod! 1°? syrsch pesh 
copt, against rest and Latin arm and aeth. As regards 
possible Egyptian influence there is very little difference in the 
writing of the two forms. Soden accepis axovoartes. 

[x.17. yovureravy YD 28 fam 13, geniculans lati (praeter a = genibus 
prostratus) 
yovuTrernoas Rell et W (et W-H Sod).| 
Thus W™ at ix. 8 weps8Aemromevor (circumspicientes latz?! for 
mepiPreyapevoe rell and circumspexerunt k). 


Imperative. 


Markii. 9. eyerpou BL Sod 28 372, eyerpe ND plur and W (eyetpac al.) 

(In. ii. 11. eyeepe NBW Sod plur, eyerpar some, and eyetpov K) 

(Consult also: vi. 22. arrnoov B plur, but aitnoas N 2°° Hust 54 and 
aitnoe NX, ernoat W). 

xii. 86. «aOicov (pro xabov) B alone. In this connection observe 
the other changes in this verse by B, not only slavishly 
followed by Hort against the usual LXX text, but xadicov 
placed in Hort’s margin. 


Infinitive for the eav construction. 


viii. 86. “Te yap wdernoes (wperer) avOpwrov eav KepdSynan (Kepdnoe) 
Tov Koopov oAov Kat EnptwOn Thy yuxyny avtou.” 

Here Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and the Eng. Revision substitute 
the infinitive cepSyaau (with SB 892, L xepdnoas) for cay xepd., and 
EnprwOnvas (with NBL 892) for SyuswOn. Soden refuses this change. 

Winer is silent. I ask can it be possible that NBL (against DW, the 
rest of the uncials and all the minuscules, against the Coptic and the 
Syriac, against the Gothic and all Latins) are really here the purveyors of 
a “‘pre-syrian” text? Or is it not an Alexandrian Greek preference and 
not even “ neutral” ? 

Note that it is immediately following this (Mark viii. 37) that N*B 
alone use Sot for Swaes (N°: Sw). [See above under “ Optative.”’] 

Note that the new witness W, in close agreement with B on both 
sides of this passage, yet knows nothing of these infinitives. 

As a matter of fact S goes quite wrong here for he has already 
substituted avOpwos (for avOpwrov) previously with coptic, making it the 
subject of wpedce and not dependent on it. Thus: te yap wieder avOpwrros 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 95 


xepSnoat is clearly not good. ti yap where avOpwrov xepdnoa of BL will 
stand, but since coptic says te yap avOpwros whedyoer it follows with the 
eay construction. 

Let us examine further now Grammatical forms: Change of case. 


Genitive Absolute for Dative. 


Mark v. 2. e€eAOovros avrov (pro e€eAOovts avtw of the mass) NBCLA 

Sod some twenty cursives of the same type and 892 Paris*’. 

This seems to aim at improvement, but D is absent writing 

e€e\Oovtwv avtav withode ff and W*. Soden follows SBCLA. 

That B had considered this matter is seen elsewhere, for at vi. 54 B 
alone cancels avtwy in Kas e£eAMovtwv avtwy (not approved by Hort). 


Genitive Absolute for Accus. Abs. 


Mark ix. 28. evceAOovros avrov (pro acedOovra avrov) with NBCDLAWY 
Sod? fam 1 fam 13 28 2°° 604 892 [non 33 Paris*"] W-H & Sod 
(it vg cum intrass et) 

Here again this seems grammatical preference, and very questionable 
at that, seeing that it is a question of motion :} Kae etceNOovTa avroy as 
OLKOY OL pabyrat QvuTOU KaTib.ay ETNPWTWV auTov,. 

These cases in Mark must however be treated differently from those 
in the other Gospels. If it be a case of translation from Latin, it would 
not be “Egypt” or “ Antioch” preferring genitive or accusative absolute, 
and changing an existing foundation Greek text, as much as two separate 
lines of translation appearing. (See remarks under this head in 
St. Luke.) 


Change of Case. 


Mark vi. 3. wworntos (pro won) BDLA Sod™ fam 13 33 2° 604 Paris®” 
ad boh W-H & Sod [non sah]. 

The sentence runs ovy ovtos ectw o TexTwy o vies (OL O TOU TEKTOVOS 
vis) [Tys] waptas nav adeAos taxwBov Kat twonTos Kat Lovda Kat cLpmevos ; 

This has a double significance. If it is a genitive for the apparent 
indeclinable swon (or wwond, as N 121, many latins, vg and aeth have it) it 
is @ grammatical improvement to agree with saxwBov and ciywvos, but 
while sah has saft ioc, doh writes neasx twcHtToc “ with (and) 
Tosetos,”’ as if doh had copied a text similar to that of BDLA, or they in 
turn had wandered to the boh and thought it a good idea seeing ;wentoc 
to decline «won and make a genitive of it. AnyhowI do not believe 
twontos to be “neutral,” but to stand at the opposite pole. N, very 


+ But St. Luke adopts the gen. abs. for this at ii. 42 xa: ore eyevero eroy 8wdexa 
avaBatyovtT@v avtwy kata to eos THs copys. 


96 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


useful as a control in this and many places, disagrees as above, while 
892 writes won. 


Change of Number. 


Mark i. 36. xatediwEev (pro xateduwEav) NBMU Sod 28 273 2 604 
al’ t g. lre vg and 8, as to “avTov Xupwv Kas ov per’ avtov.” 
To this W does not agree but, with 2®D and all the rest of 
the uncials and Paris” syr, gives us xatedwwfav, as also all 
other Old Latins and vg®™, These are not really vulgates, 
but Old Latin in Mark as well as in Matthew. 
St. Jerome followed the NB reading, no doubt for the same 
preference. Soden retains carediwEav. 

iv. 1 fin. noav (pro nv) NBCLA® 7" 7 892 Sod*”° d [contra 6 erat 
et D® nv]. This not only seems a pure “Egyptian” prefer- 
ence after mas o oyAos, but is opposed by all other Greeks and 
W and all the Latins but d, which is here aberrant since 
the other Latin company deserts it exceptionally in this place. 
Soden reverses his position and adopts yoav. 

v. 18. evondOev (pro esondOov) of ta mvevpata ta axafapta B against 
the rest, and exceptional on the part of B. (W is emphatic 
against B with the contemporary form e:ondéav.) 

Particular use : 

Mark xiii. 3. ewnpwra(proernpwrav) NBLW 4 13-69-346-556 [non 124] 28 
33 49 229 348 892 Paris® Sod!?°6 1260 (exnpwrnoev*) (boh*4 sa hata) 

This makes Peter the spokesman, and looks very like revision [see 
above on i. 86]. The sentence is: «at xaOnuevov avtou eis To opos Twy 
€\awyv KaTevayTe Tov Lepov ernpwroy (ernpwta NBLW) avtov xatidiay 
MeTpOS Kat LaKwWBOS Kat LwavYns Kat avdpeas eve Np... 

The Latins and syr arm aeth all oppose NBLW, the Coptic mss 
are divided and this small Greek group seems to be forcing the matter 
on Peter, because in the parallels there is absolutely no trace of this. 
Mait. xxiv. 3 is xaOnywevov Se avrov emt Tov opouvs Tav edatwy TpoondOov 
avtw of pabnras Kxatidiay Aeyovtes exe nuw...and Luke xxi. 7 
eTnNpaTnoav de avtoy Aeyoures SibacKkare Tote ovy TavTa ecTal... 

Soden follows Hort however and accepts exnpwra here in Mark. 


Plural for Singular. 


Mark iii. 35. ta GedXnpata 3B quite alone (and W-H mg) for to Oednpa 
of apparently all others. Can it be supposed for a moment 
that B represents the foundation text here against all else ? 
“ca Oednpata tov Beov”’ grates very harshly on the ear. 
(Here again in a graeco-sah the change of the letter m to m 


t 15 40 58 236 237 252 259 273 433 Hust 53 259. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 97 


makes the difference of the plural without change of the 
noun’s termination). Sod cannot find a single witness for B. 

NS at Matt. vii. 21 has the plural alone against B and the rest. 

In the whole range of N.T. writings ro Oednua is essentially 
Matthaean Marcan Lucan Pauline Petrine and Johannine as well as 
being the expression of our Lord. The singular occurs 58 times. Only 
once a plural form (Acts xiii. 22, being an O.T. quotation of David). 

Mark vii. 28. ex@ovow (pro ec@er) following xuvapia. So NBDLWA 
Sod°** and some cursives and 892 Paris” against the rest. 

(At another place like Mark xiv. 47 following wpo8ara the uncials 
are more evenly divided, but the same group as above less W and 
+ ACFGKN adopt the plural.) 

Mark ix. 15. Sovres (pro dw) NBC(D)IL WAY 1 13 28 83892 
eFebapPnOnaar (pro Riaieaih Paris” Sod" syr gothabed ffi 
following zras 6 6xAos. 

The question is Who made the change? Soden follows Hort. 


Plural for Singular. {Not grammatical in the previous sense. | 


Mark vili. 22. epyovras (pro epyerat) N'BCDLLWA Sod a few cursives 
copt aeth arm goth it vg, changing the sense against N* 
the rest of Greeks and syrr diatess. 

The sentence is: 

Kat epxetat (or epxovtas) evs BnOoaday kar depovew avtw 
TupAov Kal Tapakadovy avTov... 

Does it not seem that the “neutral” text (as opposed by N* and 
sy7r) is in danger of being accused of harmonising epyovrat with depovew, 
for which there can be no adequate reason. 

Why should the Sy77 oppose the Latins here? There is a curious 
method in these things. Soden adopts epyovra:. 

Again 
Pipe AA eA CouTes Da eNO i NBL WAY 892 k arm. Soden rejects this. 

edov 1, bOev 
33. nrOov (pro nXOev) NB(D)W3) 1 etc 2°* Sod®* tt syr pesh diatess 
sah (not syr sin boh which go with the large majority) 

Here 7\@ov is the harder reading, for the sentence is: 

Kat nAOov evs Kahapvaovp Kal Ev TH OlKLA YEVOMEVOS ETNPwTA 
QauTous. 

Pessibly here NBDW are right (but Soden rejects). They have the 
support of dat and syr vg diatess sah, so that syr sin and boh may be 
wrong here. 

In Evan 28 the text is 7A@ev, but in the margin the chapter inserter 
has written tw xaipw exeww nrOev o moovs Kas ov pabnras avtov 
Ets KATEPVAOUL. 

Therefore the Church lesson may on the other hand have given rise 
to 7r@op. 

H 


98 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Change of Gender. 


Mark x. 80. Zonv awviay (pro Sonv arwviov) B* 

This is not exactly a change of gender, but merely the emphatic 
form of the feminine. I have been curious enough to go through 
every other passage where aiwveos is involved. The result is that 
in the Gospels nowhere else does B change amvov to away, not 
even with xodaow at Matt. xxv. 46, nor does B modify “tas aswvious 
oxnvas” at Luke xvi. 9. In the rest of the New Testament, of the 
many places involving fwnv atwwov, B changes to amwav only at 
Acts xiii. 48 and at 1 Jo. ii. 25 ryv Sony ryv awrav [not at 1 Jo. i. 2, 
iii. 15, v. 11, 18]. 

For the rest, at 2 Thess. ii. 16 wapaxdnow away is read by all 
except FG atwvior. 

At 2 Pet.i.11 C* 42 read ess tyv awviay Bacirctay, but B and the 
rest aiwvtov. 

At 2 Cor. v. 1 all hold aswov although following two feminine 
nouns : orxodopny . + OLKLAV AYELPOTTOLNTOV ALWVLOV. 

So that there is no rule guiding B or the others, only an occasional 
preference. 

At Hebrews ix. 12 aiwvav AvTpwow seems to be read by all, but 
awviv is not modified elsewhere in Hebrews, while at 1 Peter v. 10 
ets THY atwviov avtov So€ay is read by all and not away as we might 
expect of B. 

Mk. xiv.8. Common text and GMW® min ro adaBaorpov (im sec loco) ; 
N*ADEFHKSUVWXY"8P ASIII tov adra®. but BLX*CAY 
Paris” ryv araB. 

The Greeks made alabaster masc. or fem. (Liddell and 
Scott), Herodotus using the masc. and Plato the fem. article. 
Perhaps there was a difference in the use to which the 
word was put. In the parallels and above in this verse 
no article is used. It certainly looks as if B and com- 
panions had wished to show their grammatical instinct and 
had made a change here, for % has tov, and only N° brings 
his text into conformity with B. As to W, it with ® (and 
GM reported by Tisch.) has ro. W does not even agree with 
28, the latter having tov. 


Change of Order. 
As to Order consult 


Matt. v. 4/5, where for paxapsoe ot mpaes, to come before paxapioe ot 
mevOouvres, D 383 a¢ fi fiah kl vg syr cw witness with Clem 
Origen (specifically, see Treg ‘ Printed Text,’ p. 187) Nyss Bas. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 99 


Hil and the Eusebian canons, while NB and the rest, with 
b fq syr sin pesh copt arm aeth and Tert, followed by W-H, 
put vrevouvtes first. [Sod errs as to A and 604.] 

The question is whether this is scientific. If W-H want Origen’s 
text, he is a witness here against them and supported by the section 
authority of Eus Am. This passage was omitted from consideration in 
its proper place. Now as to St. Mark observe: 

Mark ii. 10. advevas apaptias ere rns yns BP Sod? 142.157 273 al’ aeth W-H 


against ad. ems THs YNS ap. A ete. (et Sod txt) 
emt THS yns ad. ap. N D mult et verss 
and ems THS YNS W bg 


Probably B omitted and found em: rns yys in his margin, adding 
afterwards. At any rate W points this way, as that Greek Ms now 
comes to join the Latin b-g for omission of ewe trys yys. 

An exceedingly useful commentary on this supposition is offered in 
the very next verse but one. Instead of xau nyep@n evews Kar apas Tov Kpaf. 
of most Mss and versions, NBC*L 33 and four doh mss (arm?) say xar 
nyepOn Kat evOus apas Tov cpa. which is not the same thing at all. Now 
evOus is omitted outright by b ¢ e ff g, and the new Greek ms W not only 
comes to join them but gives the Greek in the Latin form of 6 q as ille 
autem surgens tulit by writing: o de eyepOers at apas... Probably again 
here NB took evéus from the margin of their exemplar and slipped it in 
the wrong place. W-H and Soden follow SBCL. 

Mark v. 25. Swdexa etn (pro etn Swdexa) NBCLAW fam 1 [non 118] 28 
fam 18 Paris®’ 892 a]. perpauc and Coptic W-H & Sod txt, 
not syr nor lat. 

This needs no comment. 

vi. 2. >didacKkew ev tn cvvaywyn NBCDLA Sod? al? 83 892 7 
Paris” df ffz (r) sah boh aeth syr arm. Contra rell omn et W 
et latt et goth. 

I am convinced that the change of order is an improvement and 
wrong, although D d/ fz join NB here for it. The other Latins (which 
from v. 40 to v. 43 hung absolutely together) oppose and have the 
support of W plus eleven uncials and 2® and 1 18 28 2” 604. Besides 
goth opposes and neutralises f here,as W ¢ neutralise Dd. Itis doubtless 
the Egyptian order to which D d have been accommodated in this place. 
Sod rejects, and most unscientifically, having followed the group at v. 25. 
Mk. vi. 26. >adernoae avtny NBCLNA® Sod 179 Sod*™} 892 against 

DW and all the rest and the Latin order autnv adernoa: (om 
avtnv 69 265 Sod! ¢ syr sin) Sod again stultifies his method 
by following NB etc. 

49. > ems tys Our. TeperatowvTa = NBULA Sod 33 892 Paris®” 
ct syr sin (of Matt. xiv. 26) W-H & Sod against DW and all 
the rest and against the order of the versions, including Coptic. 

It might be thought that NBLA were original and “neutral” here 
(obs. syr sin), but why should all the rest change? Further, observe that 

H 2 


100 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


immediately following, the same group NBLA 33 892 Paris” (without 2°° 

604 al.) change davtacpa ewat to ote davtacpa eotw with coptt (of syr). 

Both changes cannot be right. The latter (if not the former) seems 

a clear theft from Matthew. It is rejected by Soden. 

Mk. vii. 5. > ov wepimarovow ot pabytat cov NBLA 33 179 892 Paris” 
Sod™"* Evst 49 boh aeth, against sah all the other Greeks and 
DW and latt syr arm goth. There can be no question here but 
that the same vicious little group is wrong, yet Soden follows. 
Not only does sah oppose, but all the Latins and DW and the 
other important minuscules. Tisch merely quotes ‘“ copt” 
for the change. "We know now that it is boh and not sah. 

27. >Tows Kvvaptows Barew NB Sod fam 1 28 [non W] 892 
Sod44#95 3% Hyst 49 150 g against >Sar. tous xuv. everything else 
and D and W and all latt (but g) and copt syr. Even Paris” 
opposes NB here. It is nothing but an “‘improvement’’ on 
their part yet Soden follows ! 

Here there is not agreement with Coptic or Latin order (except q) 
so that there must be another reason for it. The fact that the Latins 
and copts put the Barew ahead of ros xvvapioss does not lend colour to a 
“neutral”? order here. It would seem like an Alexandrian preference 
and rounds out the sentence better. Besides when W and 28 oppose 
each other it is always wise to go carefully. Here the younger codex 
goes with NB against the one which is a contemporary of NB. 

vii. 29. >ex tns Ovyatpos cou To Saypovtov NBLA Sod®° 892 Laura’ 
Sod'*** boh‘et W-H Sod tat (contra sah et rell omn et DW verss). 

ix, 1. A small matter. Practically all Greek authorities write: 
ort elot Tives T@VY WE Er THKOTwY While B(D*) says oti er 
Ties wde TwY exTnKkoTwY, refusing to separate the article 
from eotnxotwv. W-H follow this without marginal comment, 
so that it evidently commended itself strongly to them. So 
do Tisch Treg (cf. latt) not Soden. But why should all other 
Greeks oppose B if B be right here? Is it not more like 
the grammatical preference of a purist ? 

xu. 19. See under ‘‘ Coptic.” 

xiii. 10. > wpwrov Se (pro det mpwrov) NBD#¥ 28 299 892 LauraA 4 
Sod™ Evst 58 al. pauc.anlvg W-H & Sod tat. 

and mpwrov Se de W Sod 108 115 124 [non 
157 errat Birch] 2°° al. pauc. c d ffa go t (k) 7 sah. 

This is bound up with a matter of punctuation as to whether the 
first part of verse 10 belongs to verse 9. It has led to sah and syr pesh 
[not sin] transferring es ravta ta eOvn to the end of verse 10, and to 
a very curious conflation in D d ff, gz, where holding «cau es mavta eOvy 
at the beginning they add ev wacx rors eOvecw at the end. 

That a » do not do this proves once more that this happened in D d 





t Which Tisch omits. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 101 


after the old base (which a » used) had been modified. Observe W here 
has a space before zpwtov de dec (W alone now comes to join a very small 
group) definitely reporting back xas evs mavta ta eOvy to verse 9. As 28 
only has mpwtov de with NBDY it looks as if the 28 base were older 
than W and that the parent of W had inserted de in order to make this 
matter of punctuation secure, after the NBD type had changed Set rpwrov 
to mpwrov det. 
Birch has erred as to 157 reading wpwrov de de. Correct Tischendorf 
and Horner. 157 reads Se mpwrov. 
N* really reads mpwrov (or mpwtos) Aaov Se. which Tisch does not 
refer to in his edition of the N.T. [Paris* has Se mpwrov. | 
xiv. 64, avtov evoyov ewat (pro avtov evas evoyov) NBCLAY 33 892 
Paris” Sod'™* et Sod‘ 1 q. This seems to be in the nature of 
improvement. D d ff, omit evar; LauraA™ places it last. 
W goes with the majority of Greeks and Latins for 
elvat EVvOXOY. 

65. This is followed by > avtov to tpocwrovy NBCLUAYV 33 
108 127 892 Paris” Sod'* et Sod bringing the possessive first 
as Coptic. The usual conspirators remain well together here, 
only joined by U 108 127; W and the rest are against it. 
Observe 108 127 do the same at xiv. 40. 

67. See under ‘‘ Differences between N and B”’ no less than seven 
differing orders. Of these BCLYWY Sod 892 alone cling 
together for peta tov val. no 0a Tov tnoou, which, instead of being 
neutral and basic (as Hort €& Soden would have us believe by 
using this order in their texts without marginal comment), is 
opposed by all others, thus: 33 remaining alone with sah boh, 
& alone with both syriacs, W with fam 1, 2° and 604, while 
the large groups are represented by DA and all Latins, and 
AN unc” on the other hand. But in this division none place 
tou inoov last! Eusebius is extant and he goes with Paris*t 
and DA latt practically, although having 5 with W fam 
1 2° 604. It must be an “improvement” by BCL 892, 


Historic Present. 


See lists in Hawkins, ‘ Horae Syn.’ p. 144/149. There is a difficult 
place in 
Mark xi. 7 where N*CW Sod fam 1 including 91-299 fam 13 28 Sod! 
substitute ayovow for the nyayov of most (= Matt. Luke), 
while BN°LA 892 Laura‘? Orig., holding the present, 
substitute depovow as W-H Sod tat. [D = nyayov.] 
These groups come togethcr in the same verse (+D) for em- 
Baddovet instead of eweBadov. 
Are these authorities forcing an historic present on Mark, or do they 
represent the real ‘‘ neutral” text here? The only commentary offered 


102 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


is at the close of the verse, where xa@ifer is substituted for exaOtoev 
but only by D* (d sedebat) W fam 1 28 91 241 2° (Cronin) 604. 

Here W 28 conspire to indicate a completer revision, while D 
remains composite: myayov...ewiBadrovow.. .xabeber. 

At the close of the verse NBCDLA Sod min” W-H Sod substitute 
em autov for ew avtw of all the rest (including W and 28). While in the 
next verse WD 28 and two of the cursives (2° 604) which wrote em’ avtov 
conspire to substitute with the Latins extpwyvvov for ectpwcay. In this 
verse 8 NBLA 8921 W-H Sod txt write xowavrtes for exomtov. There are 
other clear indications of revision hereabouts. By whom is the question. 

The apparent Alexandrine preference for the imperfect over the aorist, 
a kind of historic present or imperfect, is seen in some other places as 
Mark ix. 38. exwAvopev (for exwdvoapev) by NBD*LA Sod fam 1 W-H 

Sod, and it is noteworthy because repeated in Luke ix. 49 by 
NBL 157 Paris” a be 1 W-H Sod against the mass in both 
places. 

See also 
Mk. viii. 25. eveBrerev for eveBrever NBL 28 273 (WA fam 13 244 440 

syr) W-H Sod. 

That the historic present was revived can be seen in other Mssas O* alone 
at Luke x. 30 xaraBawe for cateBawev. Cf. Orig 2/3 Matt. xiv. 19 xerever. 

B is absolutely alone at Mark i. 18 using nxodovOouv for nxodovOjcav 
against all Greeks and versions. 

Mark ii, 8. Aeyes (pro eurev) NBLW 33 892 [non min al. magni momenti] 
ef 9209 W-H & Sod tat. 
16. pr loco ort exces (pro ote noOvev SDL Sod) B33 2?¢ Paris®”’ bd 
[sed D8 nobiev] ff r syr boh arm aeth W-H (avtov ecO.ovra 
A plur af q goth). W € e sec loco (pr. om) eoOver et manducat. 

iii. 8. roses (pro eroces) Blonly W-H tat [non Sod] against SD and 
all the rest + W2 and cursives. Only sah and boh* support BL. 

iv. 1. cuvayeras NBCLA® fam 13 28 604 892 Sod et tat, (fam 1 
see below), against cvvyy0n DW unc? and =® all Latin and 
6 and versions, and cvvyyOnoav A 2°° al. pauc. and some 
verss, as Matt, while the 1 fam is hopelessly divided, 1-209 
reading cvvepyerat, 131 cuvepyovtas and 118 cuvnyOn. 

vi. 1. epyerac (pro ndOev) NBCLA 892 W-H & Sod tat, sed 
confuse Sod in notul. (a? venit, al. aliter: abiit ut D xamndOev 
sic) No minn except 892 join and this would seem a purely 
arbitrary change. Note that W elides exeOey war nAOev and 
has only cas e&nAOev evs Tyv Tarpida avrov. (Obs. epyerat i. 40, 
v. 22, vi. 48, x. 1, xiv. 17, 37, 41, 66 by all ex lat? VENIT.) 
The fending of the group NBCLA is absolutely opposed by 
Origen : “Kas o papKos Se dno Kat nrOev ets THY. . 


t Observe W alone at i. 26 avexpayev for dorycay of NBL 33 Paris” Orig W-H Sod 
and xpagas of!D and xpagap of the rest. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 103 


[A place of great conflict. I lay no emphasis upon it because tenses are 
all mixed up in this chapter : 


Mark vi. 16. edeyev NBCLA® 33 892 f boh | ait 8detbgizilgr vg 
euTrev AD® 33 unc! e¢ W ac ff, sah goth syr Sod'**| 
vii. 14. Neves B 59 only (against ereyery NDW rell omn et latt 


et evrev Sod®”? 2° a n syr copt) 
Vill. 6. waparyyedret NBD" L 892 | vg® W-H Sod tat (praecipit, non 
al. latt et d = praecepit et ¢ fz jussit) 
Tapayyerxas Sod? ave 
Tapnyyetre Rell et W et ererake vid Orig (kat 0 Mapxos. 
emetaze dyow avtos tmavras avakdvat’ evOade Se ov Kedevet 
advra Tapayyerdret Tw oxXAw avaxkrOynva. Hine perperam (?) 
Tapayyekre, NBD#H, 
To these add perhaps of the man cured of the Legion of Devils: 
v.18. wa pet avrov nv (pro y) B* As only. The copts stopped 
to consider this passage, for instead of esse¢ of the Latins, 
they have “follow ”’ or “ remain with,” or “ go with” as aeth, 
but all in indirect discourse. 

vill. 36. wderes (pro wdedrnoer) NBL and W:"" 892 a n q Aug 
W-H Sod txt against all the rest (and against 33 Paris®” 
apernOncerat cf syr) and against sah boh Orig. Correct Tisch, 
for sah boh are clear. 


ix, 13. 70edov NBC*D* [contra d}) LY 892 W-H Sod tat, cf boh 
(% oportebat illum facere) 
nOeknoav A unc rell? WE minn et Paris” latt | Male Sod] 


et d voluerunt sah. 
x. 10. exrnpatav NBLAY Sod? min pauc et Paris” LauraA' 892 
W-H & Sod tat 
ernpwrouv © c&€t 
exnpotncay D rell omn et W2® minn longe pl.latt copt syr goth. 
[In ver. 18 NBCLAY reverse thist and write the aorist against 
the imperfect, but in Mark these matters are very much involved. | 
xiv. 35. ewerrev (pro erecev) NBLWT” emerrev) 892 [non Paris’’] 
boh W-H Sod, contra sah et latt™. This is nothing but a erib 
from boh [not sah, observe] and notice the manner of boh in 
expressing it. (Cf. D Clem sol. avarinte pro avarrece Luc xiv. 10) 
49, expates 3B sic, sed exparevre UY" (pro exparnoare rell). Until 
Mr. Lake published the text of ¥, B stood alone ; not even 892 
has expateute. 
x. 43. (pr loco) eorw (pro ectat) NBC*DLA et WY Sod® iz! og 
copt W-H Sod txt (contra rell). 
Observe in xii. 41 where & 273 use Oewpe (only ¢ vidit) against <Pewper 
Gr reli and latt boh ‘ aspiciebat’ or ‘ videbat,’ Origen once uses Gewper and 
once eBewper. 








} Soden amusingly abandons W-H and the group here, for he loves the imperfect. 


104 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


And, as bearing on Alexandrian custom, exhibited elsewhere, observe 
the preference for the imperfect even over the present at 


Mar! 
vi. 38. eteyou NBLA® Sod’ 33 892 Paris” b0h W-H Sod (quite 
a characteristic group) against Aeyovow of nearly everything 
else and DW, while ¢” say dicentes as sah. 
vil. 27. exeyer NBLA Sod? 4 33 892 Paris’ bok W-H Sod (Acyet 
D* 604 ag, Rell W et lati! et d sah evrev) 

x. 23, eheyer S&*C Sod (against Aeye: of B plur) 

And observe Clement when quoting x. 17 avoids both yovurerwy 
of D 28 fam 13 (geniculans lat#) and yovurernoas Gr" (genibus 
prostratus a, et cum prodisset genibus %) and says éyovuréres. 

But the treatment of this matter generally in St. Mark by the 
NB family is quite different from that exhibited in the other Gospels. 
Frequently they render an aorist for an imperfect. They were so bent 
on having their own way that I infer from this that if they were 
translating from Latin they often supposed the Latin imperfect would 
be better rendered by an aorist, but this subject is extremely com- 
plicated in Mark as in everything else in the Gospel. Take vi. 56 for 
instance. There are five imperfects in this verse ; ® introtbat, © ponebant, 
®) deprecabantur,  tangebant, and © salvi jiebant. The first and third 
are agreed to by all, but NBLA W-H Sod and five lectionaries prefer 
erOeoav to erOoyy, NBD* (against d latin tangebant) LA min® a ff, and 
W-H prefer mfavro to nrrovro, and while nearly all are agreed as to 
exwtovto (Suecwtovro N min aliq), 33 2°¢ Paris” want esw@ncay with a, and 
A bteawb near. 


HaARMONISTIC. 

Omissions. 

ix. 88. ~ o¢ ove axorovber ny (vel eb npov Dadk) NBCLAY 
Sod? 10 115 346 9? 892 Paris” LauraA' Sod 1 [non tat] 
Est 44 f [non goth] boh syr pers aeth. The character of this 
group makes it probable that they all consulted Luke and 
found the clause absent and so excised it from Mark. Why 
should nearly all the rest of the Greeks be so pleonastic if not 
genuine: os ovx axodouBer nuty Kat exwAVOMEY AUTOV OTL OUK 
neorovbes nuw? But DXW latt complicate matters with 
Soden by leaving out the ore aux nxorovOer qty at the end. 

x. 6, -0 Geos by only NBCLA Sod** [non Sod’**} c 8 sah boh. Not 
even VY omits, and all others and syr, rell latt, aeth arm 
goth have it. The passage here must be influenced from Matt. 
xix. 4 where it is absent. 

19. Here again BKAITWEY invite us to throw out St. Mark’s 
Ln atoctepnons witnessed to by all Latins, by syr pesh sah 
boh aeth, by S and D and most Greeks, as well as by CL and 
c k which were with B at x. 13 jin (see above), which seems 
to be simply because the words are absent in the parallel 


Mark 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 105 


accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke. In A there is a big 
space showing the writer was aware of his strange recension. 
Syr stn and arm support B cc. and one lorn vg". But the rest 
and the coptics are all against this excision nor do W-H Sod 
accept it. 


xiv. 68 fin. Kae (evOews) adrextwp epworncev. This is omitted by NBL and 


xv. 10. 


W [non 28] ¥ 892 Paris Hust 17 c syr sin sah boh [non aeth] 
W-H [non Sod] but by these only, and no doubt because not 
found in Matthew and Luke. The whole chapter has been a 
tissue of harmonies (in which Origen and D have played a 
part) and I do not refer to many of them. The presence 
of W here, absent for the most part from the NB combinations 
in this chapter, is probably due to coptic influence, for both 
versions of the coptic omit here. But the Latins speak 
with no uncertain sound including 4, and with syr pesh and 
the rest of the Greeks including D and CA (otherwise 
generally with NBLW) oppose c, which here shows its 
frequent critical Egyptian tendency. 

Observe B in the next verse omitting wadw alone with 
M Paris” coptics and W. Practically all oppose, including 
the friendly 892 and NCLA and ¥, only varying the position. 
—ov apxtepes B 1 [non fam] Paris” [non 892] Sod° Hust 

13 17 bok [non sah] syr sin [non pesh] 

Cf. Matt xxvii. 18 where the words are absent, but we can 
give B the credit of omitting from homoioteleuton in Mark as 
the next words in xy. 11 are a repetition “‘ o1 8¢ apysepens.” If 
I concede this, I would like my critics to allow me to date bok 
here quite as early as B, and not relegate poor boh to the 
vir century. 


. —Oedere (ante rromcw) NBCA e¢ WW 1 [non fam] 13-69 


[non 124-346] 33 291 892 Sod? sah boh (ut Matt xxvii. 22) 
contra rel omn et Paris” latt syr aeth arm. Soden accepts the 
omission. 

Again here the presence of W is accounted for from coptic 
sympathy. 


Additions. 


i. 34. 


38. 


+xP ewat post ott ndercav avtov by BLW 892 and CGM al. 
(rou yv) aeth and boh (ex Lue iv. 41) but absolutely contra- 
dicted by ND and the rest and even Paris” [against 28 2° 604. 
ete.] with syr goth pers and Vict™* diserte. Soden excludes. 
+ardaxyou NBC*L 33 Paris” sah boh arm aeth, but against 
all others and W as well as 28 2? 604 and latt syx (ex Luc iv. 43 
“Kat EeTEpats mToNEegy evayy. pe der”’...). Soden excludes. 
[This combination here of NBCL 33 Paris” against the rest 
is only one recension, for at the end of the same verse they 


106 


Mark 


i. 40. 


iii. 14. 


vi. 20. 


49, 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


have e&A@ov- together against all the rest again, who have 
e£ernAvOa or ednrvOa.] 
+xupie BCL W2® Paris” al" copt arm aeth c e ff vg® (ea Luc 
v. 12 et Matt viii. 2) Not received by Soden. 
+ovs Kat arroctodous wvopacey NBC*E WA fam 13 28 238 
Sod" [non Sod**] 8 only with boh sah aeth (ex Luc vi. 18). 
This is opposed by all the rest and D and Jatt arm and goth and 
syr. Hort unfortunately takes it into his text without marginal 
comment but R-V and Soden cast it out as Tischendorf had done 
beforethem. W is errant here writing «av erouoev 1B wadnras 
Wa WOW [eT AVTOU OVS Ka aTrcaTOAOUS wvopzacev, for W adds 
pabnras first and interposes wa wow pet avtov before making 
the addition. D and the Latins control the situation. 
(= Luke ix. 7) nope for wove. See under “ Coptic.” 
ote pavracua eotw (pro davracpua ewat) NBLA 33 892 
Paris” W-H [non Sod] = Matt xiv. 26. 
Observe in the same verse the order ews tys Oadacons 
mepiratouvta, of NBLA Sod 5! 33 ost 892 Paris’ syr sin 
only, is the order of Matthew, accepted by W-H and by Soden. 


Changes. 


( Vili, 21. voevte (pro ouviete) B®! (D) Vide sub “ Coptic.” 


I prefer not to regard this as harmonistic from Matt xvi. 11 
because of the presence of ovy in some copies and of Ge in 
sah, and because the sah word is almost voe:re transliterated. ) 


ix. 14, edOovtes...ccdov (pro edOov...edev) NBLUWAY 892 k sah arm 


Cf Matt. and Luke. See remarks elsewhere as to opposition to 
the rule of preferring the harder reading. Rejected by 
Soden. 


x. 13 fin. avros NBCLAY Paris” 892 ¢ k boh sah™™ 1/2 W-H 


Tos Mpoopepovow practically all others and W2® minn omn 
vid and the other versions and all other Latins. 

This is simply accommodation by NB etc to the Matthaean 
and Lucan accounts and about as vicious a matter as we can 
find. There are only two sah codices here extant and they 
oppose each other. Westcott and Hort have the temerity to 
place avvors in their text without a word in the margin. And 
—would it be believed ?—R-V ed. 1910 follows suit, with no 
footnote. It had corrected the harmonising blunder above of 
the same authorities, who wrote wa avtwy aynras instead of 
wa axpntat avtwy against Origen’s specific information, and yet 
here Souter’s edition perpetuates a fourth-century harmony, 
in very bad taste then as it is now. Soden avoids this. 
(Souter even restores evetyszwy for evetiunoay of the same 
blundering authorities and W-H.) 


Mark 


(xiv. 69.) 


xv. 46. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 107 


I suppose the Revisers thought ¢ k strengthen the NB 
combination here for avrows, but what of all the others? The 
Latin side is the important one and all but ¢ k& are with 
D d for tois wpocgpepovew. How we can expect to proceed 
on any such unscientific lines I fail to see. Souter’s text 
corrects two trumpery mistakes in this verse of the same 
Greek group, one of order and one of tense, and then leaves 
the worst one in the text and the editor gives no authorities 
below. We shall never advance at this rate. Did they not 
realize when they accused NB of bad faith in taking the 
Lucan order for wa avrov aynra that NB were looking at the 
parallels, and hence the further blunder ? 

I hope to show elsewhere that the Latin of b d is the 
important thing in Mark. And here we throw away the 
testimony of DW and sixteen other uncials, practically all 
cursives, all Latins but c #, the syriacs including sin, goth, 
arm, and aeth in favour of the usual coterie of blind guides. 
They are only one, an entity, and that a critical recension. 
Not the neutral text. 

I merely make suggestions elsewhere, but I make free here 
to demand of the next revisers that rows rpoopepovowv be restored 
to Mark x. 13. Even Soden’s text holds it. 

Finally here B alone adopts the eev of sah boh aeth for 
npEato Xeyev of absolutely everything else. All B’s friends 
desert him and leave him self-accusant of coptic conspiracy. 
This ecrev in copt is the same here as at Matt. xxvi. 71 (where 
the Greek is Xeye). Horner has spoiled my picture in sah by 
quoting B for np£ato Xeyew in error. 

everAnaey TH atvdove Kat eOnxev (pro KateOnKev) avTov ev pynpatt. 
SBC?DLWEs7™ 2°° 892 Sod?* [non Paris] JW-H prefer 
eOnxev to xateOnxev. €Onxev is found to be the expression in 
St. Matthew (xxvii. 60) and St. Luke (xxiii. 53) and this may 
be classed as harmonistic on the part of NBC?DL, but it is 
worse; for why should they deny free speech to St. Mark 
when the very catacombs at Rome re-echo xateOnxev! For 
this expression is found on some early sepulchral tablets in 
the Christian catacombs, and doubtless St. Mark if writing 
in Greek wrote xareOnxev and not eOnxev. [A = xaOnxev; 
Soden and Tisch retain cateOyxev. | 


Improvement. 


i. 7. epyerat 0 wrxupotepos pov omiow (—pou seg) only B and 


Orig 1/2 against all others and against Origen close by 
distinctly ov omcw pov. Hort places this second pov in 
square brackets, but it is quite against the weight of evidence. 


108 


Mark 


i, 27, 


li. 18. 


23. 


iii. 6. 


33. 


iv. 28, 


38. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


The only others to vary are 5 7 g which elide the first wou, and 
Aj 273 8 ff, t which leave the first pov and elide omicw pov. 
wote cuvlnrew avtous (pro wate cuvt. pos eavtous rell) NB only 
W-H (cf. b e ff ¢ —avtovs) against Paris® and the rest. 
Sod has no new witness. W has xat cuvetntouv mpos eavtous, 
of syr. 
A question of “pairs” as in Matthew, or rather of triplets. 
Sate ot wad. lwavvov nar ot pad. rwov pap. vyorevovaty ot Se cou 
(—paOnrar) ov vnor. B elides the third waéyra (fourth in the 
verse) with only two cursives (127 and 2°) and most mss of 
the bohairic; so [W-H]. Tisch does not record this for boh 
and Horner forgets to put it in his sah apparatus. 
odorrovew (pro odov rove) BGH 1 872 892 Sod (Om W, 
habens tirrev pro tiAdovTes). 
aupBovriov edidovv (pro cup. erowvy vel eromoav) BL 
fam 13 28 2°° 604 boh** Sod et txt, against Paris and d 
evrotouy With the mass, against ero:ovvro W Sod'*, against 
etornouv NCA Sod boh?! sah, and against D® and a 7rovourtes. 
—pov jin BD*™ arm? W-H only [contra d rell omn et verss]| 
This is another question of “ pairs’? where we have so often 
found B guilty before. It is quite natural. The phrase is 7s 
eoTW n NTNP fou Kat ov adeAor yov, witnessed to by all other 
Greeks (but W, see below), all Latins and syr copt aeth. 
Ambrose 1/2 and Aug agree (libere) with BD*, and W goes 
further and elides you after pntnp retaining it after adeddor, 
thus giving the lie direct to BD®, although not as usual 
wholly supporting the Latins. Westcott and Hort adopt 
the omission of BD* just because B and D®™ happen to agree. 
It is wholly unscientific, because small d is supported by all 
others. Soden avoids this. 
ectev (pro eta) bis BLA W-H. Ionic form. WN has ecrev 
sec. (but omits era crayuy altogether). N° inserts evra oTaxuy 
but allows erey 7A. following to stand. 
For “ «ae nv avtos ere tn TpuLyn ETL TO MporKEeparatov 
xabevdov”” NABCDLAW fam 1 fam 18 17 28 53 61 77 116 
273 604 892 LauraA1* Sod Hyst 48 222 semel it vg ete. 
would substitute ev for the first ewv: “in puppi.’ But can 
we conceive that a revision would put in this ers? Rather 
is it the hand of revision which removes this ems so as to 
have but one e7z in the sentence, and substitutes ev for the 
first. This seems logical. I assume here a Greek original. If 
we assume a Latin original, then the matter simply is a question 
of two recensions or translations. Soden prints év as W-H. 
The sah here is a little picturesquely amplified, while boh 
expresses emt (or ev) ty tTpuuvn by one word Sida pores 
“behind,” “retro.” 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 109 


Mark 


See Wetstein ad loc. quoting Hom. Od. “...¢m txpeoder 
yNaghupns iva vnypetov evdos mpupyns.” Cf Liddell and Scott 
under expta and Homer Od. iti. 353, 
v. 27. axoveaca ta eps Tov ww = N*BC*A Evst 33 W-H [non Sod]. 
Hither due toretranslation, improvement, or from AKOYCACANEPI. 
36. mapaxoucas (proaxovaas) N* o> BAe et W 892* ? e (contra 
rell omn et latt rell omn copt syr). This must be a “ nicety,”’ 
as rendered by e ‘‘ Ths autem neglecxit sermonem,” referring to 
the previous verse where the messengers report that the daughter 
is dead and add ‘“‘ Why dost thou trouble the Teacher?” 
Sod follows Hort and Tisch, but adds 2°° [contra Cronin]. 
All Latins oppose with D, but e joining W and NBLA 
shows the hand of revision. 

As Dr. Scrivener comments on this in his ‘ Plain Introduction’ I will 
add here the other two examples in St. Mark which he discusses : 

x. 16. xatevrroyee NBCA Sod 892, catnuroyes LNW Paris’ ys Pst 
(pro evroye (nuroyes T2@ 28 al.) ADEHK*MSUVXII et W 
minn, evrroynoey GK? e8* ust 28 Sod*"4) I give the evidence 
in full. Scrivener did not know of NW2®YW or Paris’. 
(Latt = benedicebat). Soden prints xatevroyer. 

xii. 17. e&eOavpafov NBY b W-H Sod, cOavpatov D*LA Sod *: 2 gre 
Laura ' 892 latt boh (eOavpatovro D*), eGavpacay ACNXITI 
al. unc? et W2® al. pl. k sah. I add here the evidence of 
W=® and ¥ unknown to Dr. Scrivener. 604 and Paris®’ read 
eOavpacay. 

Now hear Dr. Scrivener : 

““qrapaxoveas, ‘overhearing,’ instead of axovoas, may be deemed 
probable on the evidence of N*BLA and the Latin e, which must have had 
the reading, though it mistranslated negleait.” (A note to this observes 
that Lucian certainly gives the word this meaning.) ‘‘ We gladly credit 
the same group (NBCLA 473} Evst 150 259) with another rare compound 
xatevroyes in x. 16 whose intensive force is very excellent. In xii. 17 
a similar compound efefavpafov is too feebly vouched for by NB alone.” 

Thus Dr. Scrivener. I cannot agree with him. This is very old- 
fashioned criticism and neglects the force of the grouping. As a matter 
of fact the last illustration is rather better attested than the others in 
& way, because an independent enters in, in the person of the Latin ms J, 
which by adding vehementer to mirabantur, alone among Latins, provides 
the force of e€eOavyatov. The Latins also give us the imperfect. If I 
am correct as to b being the most important base key of the whole Old 
Latin in St. Mark, this is a most serious place, as showing (if 6 has not 
been revised here on an Old Greek like NB) that NBY got efe@avyafov when 
translating a Latin like b, or using a Greek base the counterpart of b.t 








+ But 473 (2°*) is wrong. 
t ¢ ff, use admirabantur, A admirati sunt, but the others mirabantur. 


110 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Now as to the other two places. Dr. Scrivener favours vapaxovoas 
supported by &*e#¢> BLA* and W e, and catevaoyes supported by NBCA 
(LNY Paris” y** P**), I believe, on the contrary, that this is either pure 
revision (“improvement”) or is to be accounted for by translating into 
Greek, at any rate in the second place “ benedicebat.” The reason is this. 
Why should “ Antioch ” or any other revision have sought to displace 
mTapaxoveas and katevdoye: if they were such good expressions that they 
commend themselves to the critic as having intensive force? Is it 
reasonable, is it probable, is it possible that all the other recensions and 
documents cast out these good intensive expressions? Where are the 
1 family, the 18 family, and 28 and 33 and 157, 2?° and 604 and others 
usually so friendly? To support the theory of mapaxoveas and Karevdoyet 
being original and basic, we must do this: we must accuse 33 of having 
come to this placef and having deliberately rejected these good 
readings. We must similarly accuse fam 1 fam 13 in their entirety 
of the same course. We must accuse 28 (sister of W) of having 
seen wapaxoveas and xatevdoyes and of having rejected them. Similarly 
we must accuse 2°° and 604 of the same proceeding. I wish to state 
this matter thus, once for all. It has not been put to us thus before, 
but daily and hourly for years I have been confronted with this 
proposition, and it is this which causes me to write this whole essay 
on NB. 

Cursive Mss, most friendly otherwise, desert the revisers of Egypt 
just when they should be expected to support them in “ good” “ plausible” 
or “improving” readings. And it is this which causes me to believe that 
the boot is entirely on the other foot and that what we have been taught 
were revisions at Antioch or elsewhere are nothing of the sort, but that 
it is the beloved group NBCL, +A in St. Mark and ¥, which come 
from the same parent-revisor of the ‘‘true” text. They sought to 
improve. 

It was old-fashioned and unscientific of Dr. Scrivener to welcome ¢ 
as strengthening the cause of the small group (which is simply an 
integer recopied) for tapaxoveas, although W* now upholds, because, 
as I have shown, W e are simply one, and because e is away from all 
other Latin support here. Similarly carevrAoyes is not strengthened by 
¥ Paris” particularly. It merely indicates that these mss found this 
in their exemplars (of the same stem exactly as NB) and if they found 
this here why should they not also be truthfully copying when they do not 
reproduce other doubtful things which we find in NB? That is the 
question. And that is why the mss junior to 8B in years, but of the 
game parentage, should be useful to us in checking the traditional text, 
and not by casting away their check when it displeases us, lead to the 
perpetuation of erroneous readings or renderings in NB. 








+ 88 is wanting at x. 16, but extant at xii. 17. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 111 


As to Paris®’. 


Thus Paris” does not read mapaxouvcas in vy. 386. I subjoin a com- 
parison of some readings of Paris*’ in this same chapter (verses 1/13) to 
show exactly how Paris®’ stands compared to & and B. 

Mark 


v. i. yepyernver Paris” LUA ete (yepacnvwy NBD) 
2. e&eNOovros autou i‘ NBCLA 892 
UIENVTNG EV 7 NBCDGLA 
3. penpacw 9 XB plur (uvnueots DH al.) 
advoeoiy 5 S plur (arxvoee BCLW) 
OUVKETL OvdELS “ NBCDLA 892 
4, Sa To avtov TOAX. ,, B plur (0 avtov Torr &, dia To 
TOAN. W, oTt TONA. avtov D) 
6. Kat tov are NBCLA 892 
MPOTEK, AUTW 55 ND plur (ap. avrov BACLA) 
8. edeyev yap 3 B plur = (kat edeyev &) 
9. ovopa poe 3 S plur (+eoTw B) 
10. avocteiAn avTous - AM al. (avtous aw. DPEFGHSU, 


avta atroot. BCA, aurov aroor. NI, 
atoat. avtov KII, — avrous 892) 


13. esondrOov i N plur (csondOev BT” Sod**) 
noav de ws Sicxin A unc? (om noav 6¢ NBCDLA 892) 
and so it runs to 
36. axovoas Paris” plur et 892 ex emend (rapaxovoas 
NBLWA e) 


Improvement (continued). 


Mk. vi. 24. tov Bamtifovtos NBLA® Sod 2°° W-H Sod against all 
the rest (and 28, Scholz misled Tisch as to 28) rov Bamriotov 
and W as copé and Jatt. 

It is difficult in Mark to know where to class this. It 
may be due to retranslation. If ‘ foundation” on the part 
of NBLA®* then how did all the rest get rov Barticrov? But 
if the Latin baptistae was original, then we can see NBLA* 
translating independently of DW and the rest. 

25 jin. Of course the Latin remains constant here with baptistae. 
L repeats tov Bamrifovros, but NBA 2? here go with the rest 
for tov Bamriorov while it is 604 and 892 which go alone to 
join L here. 

51 fin. e&otavto (pro ekictavto Kat eBavpatov) NBLAA* (fam 1) 
28 [non 604 non Paris*"] 892 copt ¢ ff, i168 vg syr sin W-H Sod. 

This is seeking to remove a conflation and is a very interest- 
ing example. Various proof offers as to this, In the first 
place both D and W with the rest hold the double expression. 


112 


Mark 


Vili. 


15. 


9. 


25. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


d is strengthened by 6 ¢ f r syr’™ arm aeth (a adds cum 
admiratione). Further the 1 family substitute e€erdnocovto 
for e€taTavto while cancelling xav eBavpafoy, showing what they 
were driving at, and, may I ask, why should all other Greeks 
conflate including Paris”? This ms has been consistently 
following the fortunes of NB in this chapter (against D 2° 
rell) but now deliberately says that this is not a conflation, but 
is original. Nor is it imported in any way from St. Matthew. 
The “conflation” was undone by NBLA in niy opinion as an 
‘“‘ improvement,” and upon reference to John vi. 19 where xac 
epoSnOncav is the expression. Finally note that 2°*, like the 
1 family, was exercised here, and while omitting \zay earlier in 
the verse, finishes thus: eftoravto nat eOavpatov ay ev cavTots. 


. pavticwvtat NB 40 53 71 86 179 237 240 244 259 sah Huthym 


W-H instead of Bawticwvra: D rell and W with the important 


-minuscules and daté. In Apoc xix. 18 N* and N° with P favour 


‘‘ sprinkling ” as against BeBapmevov of most, but there Hipp 
and the Latins are with them. Here in Mark the character 
of the cursives suggests distinctly that the change was made by 
NB, and not by the others. Not only do DW reil oppose, but 
fam 1 18 28 157 2°* 604 892 and even Paris” have Barticwvrac. 
This is the more important as to the latter because imme- 
diately following Sod'#? Paris” alone with B write azep 
edafov for a wapedaS8ov showing the B base in this detail and 


contradicting pavricwrtat. Cf. Merx, p. 70, ad loc. ‘deren 


schlimmste und sachlich ganz verkehrte in NB.’ 

—exewa NBLA Sod* 4 2P¢ Paris Evst 48 49 boh (against 
sah and the rest of Greeks and all Latins). This seems a 
distinct effort to remove a superfluous word, which no doubt 
from the testimony of DW etc. is basic. Cf. Paris’ which goes 
further and elides eorw, writing “ta xowouvta Tov avOpwrov ” 
(almost the antithesis of B’s unique to xowovy avrov above, 
which Paris” does not adopt). Soden omits exeva. 

—ov payovres NBLA Sod 4! 33 892 Paris” Evst* 18 
19 49 150 sah™s? boh**. The same group approximately 
as above, although a whole chapter further on. There is no 
particular reason for adding ou dayovres (which all the rest 
and DW have) but there is a possible ‘‘nicety” involved in 
removing the words as unnecessary. Sod'** omits. 

eOnnev tas xetpas emt, for ereOnnev tas yeipas ewt only by 
BL 892 Sod'*** against all else (if we except syr copt) and all 
Latins imposuit (or imponens as a with D®™ 2° 604 emBes). 
This seems to be from a desire to avoid the double em. If 
eOnxev ... emt were original, why should a revision strive for 
pleonasm by changing eOnxev to ereOnxev? Soden refuses eOnxer. 


Mark 


ix. 29. 


41. 


xt. 17. 


ibid, 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 113 


—xatvyotea NB k Clem W-H [non Sod] against everything 
else as well as the new W2® and even ¥ and Paris” and 892. 
Cf. Merx, pp. 103/4. 

[& has ‘‘in orationibus”’ not ‘‘in oratione” for ev mpocevyn, 
but so have 6 g and r d (contra D*) ‘in orationibus et 
jejuniis,” and i vg™ “in orationibus et jejunio.’’} 

The syriacs (with boAT arm aeth) give ‘ fasting’ the place 
of honour, reading ev ypnateva Kat mpocevyn. 
ev ovopaTt ov ott xpratou ecte. No less than ABC*KLNII* 
and S®W¥3 1 [ron fam] 892 Paris Laura’! and eight other 
cursives + five of Sodremove this pov. Tischendorf says “‘vdtr 
propter pleonasmum omissum esse; st quis imtulisset pov, 
eiecisset opinor ote yt ecte.” He found that ® not only held you, 
but substituted evov for yptorou afterwards, reading “‘ ev ovopate 
pov ott exov erat,” hence he was trying to account for the 
absence of wou in B. His explanation is quite possible, for all 
Latins have meo and quia ype estis (only ff, substitutes Dni 
for ypc and & suppresses estis) and if we regard the Latin as a 
whole to be basic we must come to the same conclusion. In 
other words it is a smoothing away of a supposed difficulty. 
Kae edidacKey kar edeyer NBCLAYV 6 fam 13 k 6 boh (aeth) 

(syr) Orig W-H & Sod txt. 

This I believe to be another’ clear case of improvement by 
‘pairs.’ t For sixteen verses we have had much disagreement, 
but the Latins have been more or less divided. Here they rise 
in a body and with sah (against boh) they contradict the group 
NBCLAY Orig W-H Sod, and have with all other Greeks, in- 
cluding W2® 2° 604 Paris” and LauraA™, nas edtdacKev Aeywu.. 

In xi. 1-16 Orig and NB have been much divided but here 
they conspire together. 

This is followed closely by mrevrounxate by BLAV Orig W-H Sod 
only. The LXX quotation, as pointed out in the notes on 
Matthew, does not lend itself to any particular form of the 
verb. But nearly all Greeks use evouncare here, including the 
Latinisers 2° and 604 and the friends of NB, viz Sod 892 
Paris” and Laura4!™, and if memouxare had been basic why 
should all change, for the aorist is hardly an improvement here ? 


24. Within seven verses we here get another illustration of 


improvement by “ pairs.” 


oga mpocevyerbe Kat avterae NBCDLAWY 892 Paris” 
Laura4™ [non al. Sodjacd ff, k syr Cypr W-H & Sod tat. 
oca Tpocevyopevor arteraOe A une rell? et Wi minn 


reli omn vid b et latt reil. 








+ Asa matter of fact 4 repeats the performance in verse 18, writing xat nxovov... 
xat e(yrovy for kat nxovoar...xa eCnrouv. 


I 


114 


Mark 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


The three cursives seem to be the only supporters of the five 
uncials with NB. Dd of,course lend support, but in view of 
the other arguments against such “pairs” Dd may have 
followed the “improvement” here, which W*® and b, two 
equally good witnesses, take pains to contradict. Besides, if | 
tmpocevxecGe kat artecoOe were fundamental, why should a 


revision change to mpocevyouevo. atretcfe? Whenever a 


copula has to be added to make such a change it is suspicious. 
(Sah boh here do not help to recover the original reading). 
If I submitted this without the one at xi. 17, the correctness 
of the inference might well be impugned. Kindly consider the 
two matters together and then the addition of D d may not be 
considered so weighty in the second place. (Sod abstains.) 

Besides, consider Origen'>? cay ornxnte mpocevyopevot 
miaorevete oTt Nau Pavete Kat AnYeoGe, thus merging 24/25 but 
implying a probable antagonism to NB. 


xii. 24 init. ey avtois o tnoous NBCLAW 88 892 Paris® Sod'*** et 


37. 


xu. 15. 


Sod sah boh syr pesh [contra syr sin] 
This is the “shorter” text. Such introductions have 
occurred several times already in this Gospel (and see below 
xii. 29). I have hesitated to brand them as ‘‘ improvements ” 
in deference to the shorter text. But here Origen?** (with 
the rest of the Greeks and all the Latins) comes to say that 
aroxpiOets 0 tnaovs evmev (autos) is the Marcan text. There- 
fore the previous passages involving this “ cutting” (generally 
with copt) must be viewed with suspicion. The group itself 
is plainly self-accusant of a special line of work, and as it 
would appear editorial, some time back in the third century. 
Consider xii. 27 fim again the “shorter” text ‘‘oAv tAavacbe”’ 
NBCLWAYW 892* Sod'5* 1443 & sah boh against all others (even 
33 and Paris®’ oppose) and we see the same group at work. 

For the others including syr pesh have the longer expression. 

Out of six varying orders BLT“ 2° 892 Sod ™* e¢ tat elect to 
use avtov ect vos. Cf remarks on “‘ Genitive before the 
noun ” in Luke. Here in Mark the possessive precedes the noun 
according to coptic usage but the verb comes last: avrov vios 
eat by sah boh and 179 7°° goth, so that (taking into con- 
sideration vios avrov ect of N rell pl. and b, and eotw ios 
avtov of D d dé", and eatw avtov vios of Ak 8) the order of BLT* 

seems to be a grammatical preference combined with coptic. 
els Thy ouxiay = NBLY 245 Sod**** 5 ¢ k sah boh [non aeth] 

syr pesh [non sin] W-H [non Sod] 
This I think is a clear case of improvement. It is opposed 
by D and all the rest, including not only W 28 and the 
minuscules (2?* only has the shortened clause “‘ «au o em Tov 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 115 


Swpatos pn KxataBatw ets THY otxiay avtov’’) but by 892 
Paris” and Laura‘ syr sin and all the other non- Egyptian 
Latins, arm and aeth. The reason is to avoid Mark’s 
characteristic pleonastic touch, for he undoubtedly wrote: 
o de (or xato D it?) emt tov dwpatos un KaTaBato es THY oLKLay 
pnde evcehOatw apar TL ex THS olxtas avtov. The compiler of 
the NBLr¥ recension seems to have forgotten Mark’s method. 
See below again at xiv. 19. This will be a good place to 
exhibit it. 


Mark's Diction. 


I take the liberty of extracting from Sir John Hawkins’ list some of 
the longer expressions in St. Mark’s synoptic diction.t They are very 
interesting as showing on the one hand semitic pleonasm (and no doubt 
more true to life than the shortened forms in St. Matthew “ St. Luke) 
and on the other a kind of Roman rhetoric which Mark may have 
imbibed amid Roman surroundings. 


Mark 


oias de yevouerns ote edu (educev) 0 AL0¢ 


. awndOev am avtou 7 AeTpa Kat exabepicOn 
. KNpuvocewy TOAKG Kat Svadnprfery Tov Noyov 


TOTE VNTTEVTOVGIY EV EKELYN TH NEPA 


. Xpelav exyev Kat eTELWWAaceEY 
. ov duvatat atabnvat adra TEdos EXEL 


emt To TeTpwoes (vel ETL Ta TeTPwWdN) Kat OVK ELYEY NV TONAHY 


. Kaptrov avaBaivovra Kas av€avovta (vel av£avopevor) 

. vireo Tov podtoy TEOn n VITO THY KALYNY 

. EKOTTATEY 0 AVELOS KaL EYEVETO yadHVTy MEeyady 

. €b5 TOV OLKOV DOU TPOs TOUS TOUS 

. OGG 0 KUPLOS GOL TETTOLNKEY Kat NAENTEV TE 

. wa coOn Kas Enon 

. Kat pndev wpernberca adra paddAov evs TO YEtpov EXOovea 
. poBnbeca Kat Tpenovea 

. Tt OopuBecobe Kau (Tt) KraLeTE 


KQl EV TOLS TUYYEVEVOLY AUTOV KAb EV TY OLKLA AUTOU 


. eswder. .ex THs Kapdias 


OUT@ VOELTE OVOE DUVLETE 
KATLSLAY fLoVvOUS 


. wa Toda Tay Kat eLovPevwOn 

. €oTat TavT@Y exxaTos Kat TavT@V SiaKovos 
. oTVyvacas. .AuTrOUpEVOS 

. VU €V TW KALPW TOVTW 





+ Pp. 189/141. I have modified some passages slightly to embrace some ms 
evidence, and excluded others where the mss vary. 


12 


116 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Mark 
xu. 44. qravta oca evyev. .oAaV Tov Brov 


Ri. 28. amados yerntat Kat exun Ta pud\Aa 
29. eyyus eotiy emt Oupais * (and Matthew, not Luke) 
xiv. 1. ro wacya nau ta abupa (Compare Luke) 
6. adete avtTny + Te avtTn KoTrous TapeyeTeE 
15. extpwpevoy eroywov (Some Latins and Orig expand further.) 
30. onpepov TavTy Tn vUKTE 
61. eovwra Kat ove arexpivato ovdev (vel xat ovdev amrexp.)t 
RV. 21. vapayovta . . epyopevov am’ aypou 
82. wa oper kat TicTevomper (avTw) 
42. eres nv Tupackeun o eatw TpocaBLatov (vel mpos caf. vel mpw 
ca8B.) 


Xvi. 2. (Asay) Tpwt. .(eTt) avatetravTos Tov NLou 


[Add xiii. 15, xiv. 19.] 


Improvement (continued). 
Mark 


xiii. 35. 7 owe 4 peo. (pro ove n peo.) NBCLA* #3 892 Sod? 399 fam ga 
et Sod k ? sah boh aeth 

The first 4 is an addition by these authorities to make the double 
“pair” ¢ against all else, and W2® Origen*** and Orig'™* 8” 

In this we cannot tell whether the sahidic got it from these six 
Greeks or the Greeks from the sahidic, as in sah the expression is 
literally the same: H...H; in boh it is Ey. .er. 

To xiii. 15 now add‘xiv. 19 jin. where xas addXos pnts eyw is omitted 
by NBCLPA et W [non 28] ¥ min aliq g.15 vg sah boh syr aeth. This 
looks like a strong combination, but for the clause are ranged DAW*XTTI 
unc® et &®, all the important minn including fam 1 fam 18 (both in their 
entirety) 28 [hiat 33] 157 2° 604 892 Laura4! etc (and Paris®’, the 
latter apparently having «as 0 addos without pnts eyw sec) § a (mut b) d 
SF (mut goth) ff24 k q (mut r) Orig, and it is decidedly in Mark’s manner. 
Absent in Matthew it may well have been thought redundant here and 
early removed. As Sir John Hawkins’ book is based on Westcott and 
Hort’s text he naturally does not have on his list this place or xiii. 15. 
The full context here at xiv. 19 is: ‘“(«au vel ov Se) npEavto AvTreic Ban Kat 
Deyew avtw evs xara (vel KaO) ets pnTLeyo Kat addos pte eyo.” It is 
this wat addos pytt eyo which the itala supports with D unc minn longe 
pland Origen against the Egyptian coterie of uncials plus a few scattering 


+ anexpi6y of D is a form no doubt later than the second century. See Moulton’s 
review of Thackeray’s Grammar of Old Testament Greek in J.1.S. January 1910, 
pp. 299/800. 

t 9 ope n peo., 7 adexrp. n moar” instead of “ oe n peo. 1 adexrp. 1 Tpat.” 

§ Cf c in peculiar manner inverting: ‘“ nunquid ego aut alius hoc singuli coeperunt 
dicere.” 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 117 


cursives (see below) and sah boh syr aeth [not arm apparently]. To the 
previous evidence for omission we have now to add W, but given its 
Egyptian environment this witness has not here a very grave importance, 
and 28, its sister, contradicts it. It seems almost incredible that this 
very pleonastic clause should have been added, but very natural that it 
should have been subtracted as quite redundant. We are however doing 
violence to Mark’s own distinct method (as exbibited above) if we elide 
the words, and Origen is a witness here for the words ‘*** distinctly 
Marcan (0 de papkos ott npEavto AvTreta Oat Kat Arye avTw ets KAO eva...) 
but Origen is here put out of court by the critics because he fails to 
uphold the doctrine of codices otherwise sympathetic. Thus we are up 
against a wall of prejudice which has forced the critics to follow certain 
rules involving the impeccability of certain witnesses. The addition here 
is absolutely Matk-like and I believe in D and the itala with Origen 
against the other versions and NBW etc. This is practically a key place 
as to how much force such a strong grouping for omission should 
exercise. And we cannot consider it apart from Mark’s habitual 
manner. Soden does not omit, although retention stultifies his other 
readings with the same group. 

Tisch claims min for omission, but I doubt if there be as many. 
Among them are 17 106 131? 218 s* Hust 79 10 12 1417 36. Thus 
none of Matthaei’s codices and only one of Scrivener’s. Soden adds five. 

Finally consider the Latin expressions for es xa’ ews (evs Kata ets 
NBLA [non W] ¥ 892; Beza ess xdta [= cat eta] evs; evs exaatos C; 
eis Tap evs 244; ets xa? eva Orig) for there is quite a difference between 
singillatim of vg g2 1, and singult of the principal vett. The singuli 
allows of numquid ego with the addition et alius nunquid ego, while 
singillatim assumes the stop after numquid ego without further addition 
as if when Jerome was translating his Greek he adopted this on purpose, 
not proposing to amplify the clause. 

k indeed transfers singulis to the end after the double clause, 
thus: ‘‘ Illi autem coeperunt conitristari et dicunt illi numquid ego alius 
numquit ego singulis.”” Observe c, cited above. 

Mark 

xiv. 29. Indeed it is a question whether Mark’s pleonastic manner 
has not been pruned at this place also. For e nas waves 
oxavdadicOncovtas adX ove eyw there is added by D d ff, 
qr? vg® ov cxavdarrcOncopat. And to this witness now add 
(teste Buchanan) b: nunquam scandalizabor, exactly as (teste 

Horner) the sah ms™, 
36 jin. Or at this place, where to: aAX ov Te eyw OedXw (or adr 
ovy 0 eyo Oedkw D) adda Te ov (or adr o ov D) there is found 
the addition of Gedes in D Sod art c*abcdf fr (hiat i) 





¢ Tisch, omits 2°°, 


118 


Mark 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


g2 q (7?) vg"® sah boh arm aeth. Tt is rather curious that the 
coptics add, but not NB rell gr nor W. Buchanan now adds 
b to all these other Latins. 


xv. 46 init. Or indeed here, where all Latins have o S¢ wand 


(following tw soonp ver 45 fin) with D& [hiant N®] Sod 
2P¢ and a very few cursives against all Greek uncials and W. 
It is quite possible that the first Latin draft of Mark contained 
this, and that it was removed in the first Greek as rather 
unnecessary and «xa: substituted. At any rate it is very 
peculiar to find such a clash of arms as occurs here when 
all Greeks and W are for «as against all Latins and D= Sod 
88 106 485 2°¢ Sod!?? § 38 for o Se wwand (nm syrPeeh Mer B pay 
twang) especially as in the previous verse W is with D 1 124 
QP° Sod'**" substituting mapa tov xevtupuwvos for amo Tov 
xevtupsovos, and yet here opposes. And in verse 46 again goes 
with D d (2°) alone for ess tnv ow8Sova (pro Tn cwbdor). 


Consider also xi. 11 owas ovons (—Tys wpas) by BA alone. Cf. 
John xx. 19 ovons ovy oyvas and Thueyd. (i. 50) Sn de nv oe. 
And Mark xiv. 3 of the contents of the alabaster box : 


xiv. 38. 


KaTeyeey avtov KaTa THs Kepadrys. This xara is removed by 
NBCWA 8 1 [non 118-209] 28 435 892 Sod": ct Sod** (k: et 
perfudit cum a capite). ems is substituted by D Hust 20 sah 
boh (syr) it, but Arrian (quoted by Wetstein) supports the N.T. 
use: “Bare edadioy maidapiov eis to Badavetov, e8arov av 
yaplov, Kat aTrekOwy Kata THS KEhadnS avTOV KaTEXEOD.” 
“‘qpoaevyecOe wa pn evoedOnte evs Teipacpov.” N*B 13-346— 
556 Sod'? and q are for making it mp. wa pwn eXOnte es 
metpacpoyv to remove the double es. Sod follows NB and W-H 
here. 

The other 21 Greek uncials, including CDLA and ¥7” and 
'W as well as the great cursives and 892 Paris® Laura4 ™, are 
all against NB, while 69-124 give the lie to 13-346—556 of this 
family. When the NBCLAY family (for it is a family of 
uncials in Mark just as much as fam 13 of cursives) is divided, 
and only two of its members, XB, go ‘apart, and CLAY, four 
of its members, join the great. majority, why should we favour 
NB? Consider for a moment, if eX@ynre were original, why 
change to eeAOnre and invite the pleonasm? The answer 
would be that all these 21 Greek uncials have been 
accommodated to Matthew and Luke, where we read 
eae One ets Tretpacuov! I think the charge here is rather 
ridiculous, for if so it is a conspiracy of W (the contemporary 
of NB) as well as of 20 other uncials and 1,000 cursives. 
Rather is it that the Greek recension of Mark, as I am 
trying to point out, is a thing apart and must be reckoned 


Marx 


xv. 86. 


XV. 


39. 


40. 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 119 


with as such, and that here NB were merely ‘improving ” 
ecgehOnre evs and do not hold the neutral base against all else. 

I have excluded, as a rule, passages which were liable to 
reaction from synoptic parallels, and only adduce this with 
some hesitation. See below for confirmation at xvi. 5. 
Tus (pro ets) NBULAWV 892 Paris’ 5 (arm) against all else, 
all Latins (but 8), sah boh aeth, and syr (although it will 
bear both interpretations). The above little group is simply 
an entity deriving from one revising parent. I do not cite 
it as a special case of improvement, for eic may have 
been simply misread as TiC, but in order to emphasise the 
basic entity of this group as a whole. Not a “neutral” 
entity however, as Hort the Revisers and Soden [against all 
other Mss] indicate by placing ris in their texts, because all 
the Latins oppose, except 6 over A® of the group. 
More grave is the omission of xpafas here by NBLY 892 
and copt. No others. W, which has a lacuna xv. 12-38, 
begins again just before this, and has «pafas with all the rest. 
See my ‘Genesis of the Versions,’ vol. 1. p. 403 seg for the 
explanation. A avoided this in the eighth century. Hort 
revived the error in the nineteenth, and R-V followed suit, 
and Souter’s edition of 1910 maintains it and Soden also omits. 
As to & that Ms merely substitutes exclamavit for efemveucev. 
—nv NBL [non AV] p** 892 vg 1/2 W-H & Sod txt. 
+nv all the rest and W=W Paris’, DA and all Old Latin 
extant and vgg'!+ bok (sak errs). As to the Latin Wordsworth 
remarks ‘“ emendatio Hieronymiana ut videtur ex graeco”’ for 
Amiatinus and ten vulgates omit against the Old Latin. 

(The syriacs and aeth omit ev ats nv). 


. NMoveas (pro eceAPovoa) Only B 127 against all the other 


Greeks friendly to B. This is another case of real “‘ improve- 
ment” on account of the es following: “av ece\Ooveat ess 
To pynueov.’ See B in the other Gospels. Hort places 
eMovea: in his margin, obviously liking B’s method. 


Change without Improvement. 


Among many we fasten at once upon xvi. 4. Here we are on firm 
ground before the famous dispute as to what follows xvi. 8. 


XVi. 


4, 


avaxexumiorat (pro amoxexvtotat) NBL W-HR.V. Sod. This 
is of the stane, and appears to represent a mistaken view of the 
way in which the stone was placed in Jewish burial places. 
Neither A nor V join NBL here, nor any minuscules, not 
even 892 or Paris®’, while the itala Mss with D (atroxexuAtopevor) 
all have revolutum except n = amotum. The question is of 


120 


Mark 


iv. 8. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


rolling away, rolling away from, not lifting or rolling up. 
To think NBL (as Hort and R.V., Sod text) represent a 
“neutral” text because av oxex. is the expression in Matthew 
and Luke is to do violence to the whole synoptic problem. 
The mass of authorities did not accommodate to Matthew 
and Luke here (againsi NBL) for VY witnesses against its 
friends with the rest, but it only proves once more that the 
textual situation in St. Mark is quite different from that in 
the other Gospels as regards NB, and the matter of 
retranslation here in St. Mark must be taken into account. 
Observe the amotwm of n. Under avaxvdwdew or avaxvAw in 
the Lexicon the significant and only remark is Alex. xvBepv. 
i. 7. Thayer gives also Alexis in Athenag. Leian. Dion Hal. 
Plut., but under azoxvd. Josephus and the LXX three 
times. [See Postscript in Part II. Tisch has misreported &]. 
avéavopeva (pro avtavovra TIRP unc? vel av€avopevov 
ACDLAW) by SB Laura‘? only. Even 892 has avéavopevov 
and Paris” avfavovra. Om. 2°, 

NB would have “a edidov xaptov avaBaworta Kat 
avéavoueva’’ which seems simply to be a mistake (even if it 
does refer to dAXa init.) which however both Hort and Souter 
follow. Wiser are Tischendorf and Soden with avéavopevov. 

a&dra init. is read by NBCLW 28 33 124 892. Even with 
Gra (pro andro init.) CLW 28 33 124 892 still give us 
avéavoyevov or av€avovra. 


Opposition to the Rule “ Proclivi lectioni praestat ardua.”’ 


vill. 16. 


ix. 14. 


exovow pro exouev. This is distinctly the easter reading. 
“at Sredoystorto mpos addydous (AeyovTes) oT apTous ovK 
exovow.”” NBDW fam 1 28 2°° 604 iz?! (non syr) omit Aeyorres. 
exovotv is read by BW fam 1 28 2° 604 ¢ g. k (D evyav), a 
bdiqrnon haberent, ff, haberent 
exouev by the rest (XaSouer Paris) with the Vulgate, while 
copt = (dicentes) nullus panis iis, 
syr = panis non est (nobis). 

The matter turns on the omission of the word \eyortes and 
the original Aramaic expression for “have.” But when 
Aeyoures is dropped eyouev becomes more difficult. Hence 
apparently B writes exovow (followed by W-H d& Sod) while 
N holds eyouev with the mass, although it omits NES: with 
sah, which boh and syr retain. 


ebovres (pro Bev) ) ; 
eSov (pro wer) } NBLAWY 892 k sah arm W-H [non Sod!] 


Mark 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 121 


There is a difficulty here, and apparently overcome by the 
‘neutral’? text, and hence opposed to the above rule of 
preferring the harder reading. In the previous verses our 
Lord discourses with the apostles who had been present at his 
transfiguration. Then in verse 14 the majority of witnesses 
read: kat ehOav mpos Tovs waOntas Wey oYAov Todvy rept 
avtous...‘‘ He came to the disciples.’ As verse 13 said “adka 
eyo usuv”’ etc, some scribes perhaps jumped to the conclusion 
that our Lord was speaking to the body of disciples (while the 
record is of Peter, James and John) and thought eh@wv mpos 
tous waOnras should be eAPortes. 

As a matter of fact syr sinf says ‘‘“When he came to his 
disciples they saw”’...using half of the change of NBLAWY 
892 & sah arm, and showing that the difficulty was known and 
ancient probably before B’s day. 

The matter may be merely harmonistic (cf Matt xvii. 14, 
Lue ix. 87). 

Other passages bearing on this rule may be found under 
“JTmprovement.” See ix. 41 efe. 


Origen and B in conflict. 


To complete the picture of an already composite text in B we must 
consult Origen closely. 


1. 15. 


tbid. 


OTs Nc ug™ Orig syr sin 
xat eywv ort Bete (Others reywv ort as AD unc® sah goth, 
so that B here has the longest text of all with a b boh) 


. evevya NBCDLO'W min aliq 28 372 892 ete. W-H & 


Sod tat. 
evvvyov A unc et TD et Orig et 2° 604, et evvuyiov Paris” 
al. alig. 
. eEwdev B24 sols 
cfu Orig?® et rell 


. pn Brerwor Orig et gr pauc. [negl. Orig von Sod] 


Brteroce NB rell pl (W —Brerwot xa. Cf. syr sin) 


. tat (pr loco) Origen plur., sed mas NBCLWA 7 28179 Sod** 


ev tu (sec loco) Origen et NBCLIWA 7 28 et Sod™. 

This seems to be a question of “pairs” again, for D al. 
change in the second case to ev moa, having tw primo loco. 
Origen’s quotation seems quite important here. W-H 
naturally follow the apparently strong group against Origen. 





+ Recte vid Burkitt et Merz. Male Lewis Horner. 


122 


Mark 


CODEX B. AND ITS ALLIES. 


iv. 34 fin. ewedvev avtas DW eff21gr and Origen (Om. THpore sah 1/2) 


vi. 


ibid. 


vii. 24, 


tbid. 


Viil. 


a 


40. 


45. 


6. 


12. 


36. 


€TENUEY TAVTA NB reil et rell latt, sah boh, syr aeth 
nnrOev ' Plur et Origen against historic present epyeras 
by NBCLA Sod et tat [non minn] (om exeOev kat nXOev W) 


Kata NBD 21 W-H Sod“, but ava Rell gr Orig. 


avdpes p (pro ava exarov) W 
a poaryew NB gr plur 
mpoayew avrov DN2® min alig latt et verss et Orig 
apos Bbc. NBDW plur 
ets Bn Oo. Sod fam 1 28 2°* 604 Orig 
— xat odwvos Orig" et DILAW Sod?” 28 2? a b ff, in syr sin hier 

(Correct Merx p. 75 by adding W Sod™ 28 syr hier, and make 
Orig: Orig™® 4), 

Habent NB rell et W-H Sod tzt. 

Who is right? Orig" *"¢"* and DW 28 6 etc. syr™ ™*, or NB ? 
ets Thv orxtav =» Orig et DW® Sod” 71 179 2°" s** al, 
els ouktay NB plur. 

(Following this observe: @eAncev NA 2” al® Orig and nOede 

BDW reli. Origen stops. at yvuwvar, but NB Sod™* (alone) 
write nduvacOn for ndvvnOn). 
An interesting matter occurs here referred to also under 
“Historic present.” While NBD*L 892 W-H Sod have 
maparyyedXet the rest have wapnyyetde (mapayyethas Sod 2°*), 
Now Orig?*™ says waxes pev KéNever Tous oXAous avakOnvar H 
AVATECELY ETL TOV XOpPT Ou * Kat yap a) Aoveas* KATALKALVATE QuTOus 
aveypayre, Kat 0 papKos'emetate, gyow, avtow tavtTas avax- 
Awas* evade S€ ov KedNevEeL AAA Tap ary ehrEL TW- oXAW 
avaknOnvat.. 

From this it would appear that Orig did not say Mark used 
mapayyeAret. He merely uses two historic presents to 
explain the matter. If NBL followed this we have a good 
key as to the responsibility of Origen for much that has been 
attributed to the “neutral” base of NBL. [Observe I leave 
D® out, because he is contradicted here by all Latins but / 
and five vulgates.] Apparently then everafe is St. Mark’s word 
according to Origen. This makes a further complication in 
our troubles as to a Latin or Graeco-latin original for Mark. 
c and ff; use jussit here, but elsewhere in Mark vi. 27, 39, 
ix. 25, they use praecipio with the rest of the Latins for 
emutagow, Ati. 27 on the other hand inperat is generally used. 
At any rate we find NB and Origen disagreed here at viii. 6. 
onuevov emitnree Orig and many with W, against fyre. onpecov 

of SBCDLA. 
woperee NBL W3 892 anq W-H Sod txt 
epernoe: All the rest and Orig (wpednOnoeraz 33 Paris”, cf syr) 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 123 


Trak 87. doe N*B W-H txt . do XL Sod'* 
dwce Orig rell omn. 
ix. 1. twv extnkoTwy wde 1 sah boh Orig [ef b de circumstantibus 
mecum (—hic) 5°; —hic 7 r et d (D*)] 
WOE TOY EGTNKOTWY B (syr sin aeth) 
Tov woe Ear. N ail. 
2. +e tw mpocevyacbat avTov Sod 28 2° c& Orig" 
pd "5 avTous W fam 13 
Omit NB reil 
3. eyeveTo NB unc® et W® Sod? 
eyevorro AGKLNVXW‘TII et = : 
ywovtTas Orig 
eyevevovto D 


x. 18. wa ayra: avtwv Longe plur et W Sod™ et Orig" “ xara 
pev Tov patOaov wva tas..xata &€ Tov HapKoy, tva ayyntat 
autwy' Kata Se Tov AovKay, wa avtwv aztyTa.” 

sed wa avrav ayntas NBCLAWV Sod® 124 852 Evst 49 y* al. 
pauc, et Paris” et f5 W-H. In the light of this, when we meet 
A 124 Evst 49 Paris” elsewhere with NBCL does this inspire 
confidence in them as supporters of NB? It merely indicates 
a similar text faithfully copied, but the group is to be treated 
as one eclectic group, not as a tenfold authority. They stole 
the Lucan order here and created a hiatus in Mark to do it. 
And we know they did this, for they substitute avros of Luke 
and Matthew (see under ‘‘Harmonistic”’) for tows mpoopepovow 
of the great majority of authorities at the end of this very verse. 

20. epvraka AD 28 892 Clem Orig 
edurdakapunv NB reli (evrarnoa 1 2” Sod'*" syr sin) 

29.  untepa yn tatepa = BCAW® Sod al. pe. et txt. Boh sah 1/2 
n TatTepan pntepa = ® rell et VW Orig™"S quamvis Marcus 

.-cum dicit qui dim. patrem et matrem. 
35. ot dvo veoe BC Paris” sah boh aeth. No gitar 
not even WV, and Orig with S and the rest flout the proposed 
addition. (Soden however quotes Origen for it.) 
46. epyeras (pro epyovtat) D min? a b ad fe ga ir syr sin 
diatess Orig™® contra rell. 

ibid. exerBev (pro amo tepryo) D2aPtabdf fraigqr goth 
Orig” contra rell 

ibid. emavrov —_D Sod® 9° Ori ig (et wpocartov A plur WEP verss 
-plur) 

mpocaitns NBLAYV 892 k W-H & Sod txt [sed of. Merx 
p. 130] Om. C* Paris®. 

48. ot woddou §=O rig (of sah) No ee add oe but B* has autos 





+ Male Tisch de 28. Habet 28 avrov sed W avrovs. Om, Ortg von Soden, 
t Errat Muralt de 2?°? amo vepetxw habet Belsheim nec aliter Cronin, Vide Sod. 


124 


Mark 


24, 


abid, 


41. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


wodAot for avtw or avrov wodAg. Sod does not quote Orig or 


Clem. 
Cf Clem" lib aperer cat twv eriBowpevev Tov Kuptov auToV oF 


MEV TWONAOL. oe 


. avrov povnOnva. Orig cum plur et W, contra NBCLAY 7 


892 Sod et Sod’ dovysate avrov cum boh. 


. See remarks elsewhere (pp. 4/5) about Origen’s double text here. 
. atoorenres NBD* mult et syr b'c | W-H Sod, sed aroaredes 


ubique Orig (ter vol tii, et vol iv) cum GUI et W®Y [non 2] 
ad [contra D™| f ff2 92 q 7 8 vg sah boh arm aeth. 


. —Tns wpas = B® cum sem exe 1454 (Habet Orig rell) 
. NB and Orig at variance here also. 
. payor NB etc. 


payn DW ete Orig"® 


. avOpwrros Tis epuTevoev aprerwova Orig et W fam 13 2°* Sod" 


c syr pesh aeth al. pauc. 
auredwva avOpwros epuTevoey NBC(L)APY ec. 
(Cf. rell sub ‘‘ Two or more recensions.”’) 

Origen is specific as to azroxpiOeus evrev for Mark against edn of 
XBCLAY 33 892 Paris’ Sod“? & Sod copt, that thoroughly 
representative group, all hanging together for this (as on 
several previous occasions) an apparent improvement. Syr 
pesh joins this group here, but is opposed by syr sin’ which 
takes the side of the Latins and other Greeks and Origen. 

D Orig wn yewwokovtes pro pn edotes of the rest and W. 
This seems to be a clear case of retranslation by Origen. 
See p. 159. In Matthew (xxii. 29) edores is used. 

eotas Orig duserte bis (kata papkor) cum W Sod™ fam 1 
Sam 13 28 2?* Sod**" arm syr sin, contra xabicas NBD et rell omn 
et latt copt syr pesh diatess (ex Marco) Hiat goth. 


I would like to point out here that syr pesh and diatess arab keep 
with NB and the mass against syr sin and Origen. One should remember 
this place when praising syr sin elsewhere if it supports NB and contra- 
dicts syr pesh. The-matter here is of course irreconcilable. 

Mr. Sanders does not record this place as to W in his notes 
on p. 80 owing to his self-imposed limitations (see p. 74). 


xii. 41. 


48. 


xii, 8. 


xatevavtt Orig” with N and most, but arevavts. BUY 33 
71 179 280 348 Sod™™"* [non Sod'**] Paris” only. 
n xXnpa n wrayn avtn Orig? et DED Sod™™ 7 604 QP° Hyszainaue 
Sod) 1216 Qa b dig 
(contra n xnpa avtn n tTayn = NB rell et W'V) 
aun n xnpan TTaxn 28 Cf syr, et 21 k (—rrwyn) 
+xas tapayar Orig “* (“Marcus addit et turbelas ”’) contra 
NBDLY Sod'**" it (praeter gq) boh. This is a square division, 
with sah on Origen’s side and most Greeks, but practically 


Mark 


xu. 11. 


toid., 


B IN ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 125 


all Latins go with NBDL against him. "W however comes to 
his rescue and has it (‘‘ecovtas otcpot Kata Torrous * Nupot 
tapayat”’) as also LP Sod”. 

Orig here goes with W 28 fam 13 91 299 2P¢ Sod’**" k for execvo, 
against route of NB and most, and avro of D* c. Unfortunately 
b is here mutilated. Small as is the place, the fact that Origen 
with W 28 contradicts NB plur shows a possible foreign base f 
(with D* ¢ opposed to d) and b’s testimony would have been 
most useful for control. As to 91-299 they are really part of 
the 1 family, but 1-118-209 apparently have rouro, so that 
this family is divided amongst itself, but fam 13 holds 
together. Compare this place with xii. 24 above. 


. Orig and all eravactnoovrat, but B Sod" eravacrncetas (as 


BA 28 Sod* at Matt x. 21) with k exsurgebit. 


2. mowencovow TD Sod? 27° min" a d et Orig?® (rouse. . . .7rovet) 


contra NB rell S@covcw 


5. + (ante oe) NBCLAY 892 Sod? 9 fam $9 e¢ Sod ? sah 


boh aeth against all the rest and Origen. 


. pecovuetio Origen with Hipp? & 238 511 604 e& Sod!**7 and 


latt media nocte, against varying forms in the rest. 


. 0 els (pro eis) NBC*TLMY 892 Sodt*** boh against sah 


the rest and Origen (who was with them just above in dropping 
0 before coxaporns with latt). 

Neglect mpoonAGe here of Origen alone for awn\fev of the 
rest (j\Oev LL) as the mpos following no doubt accounts for 
Orig (libere). 


19 fin. Habet Origen nat addos pnts eyo cum D unc? [PY minn™ 


68. 
xv. 1. 


abid. 


Sod it? contra NBCLPAWY copé syr aeth. 
+evbus W 124 2°* 604 a sah arm Orig (syr sin) against the rest. 
exoncav Orig D3 Sod? 245 2P¢ Sod? 199714 et Jatt (contra 
B plur wowncavres, et NCL 892 soli cum Sod" eroysacavres). 
arnyayou Orig COGNW® [Hiat ®] al. paue. (latt) [contra 
arnveycay NB plur]. 





{ See below, xiii. 85 peorovueria. 


CHAPTER IV. 


CONCERNING THE GENESIS OF THE LATIN VERSION OF 
Str. Marx’s GosprEL. 


“ This (Western) tect was translated into Latin before the time of Tatian, and the 
primitive bilingual in which the translation stood is a document of patriarchal dignity 
and largely capable of restoration.” —Harris, ‘ Codex Bezae,’ p. 177. 

“ But, beyond this, when translations were made into Syriac and Latin (the former 
certainly, the latter probably, as early as the middle of the second century) the attention 
of scholars was necessarily directed to the difficulties in interpretation of the text, with 
tte occasional archaic expressions, obscure words, and harsh constructions; and the 
practical usefulness of a simplified and modernised text was suggested.”—Ramsay, 
‘St. Paul the traveller and the Roman citizen,’ p. 25. 


To put the matter into as few words as possible, before the new 
Greek ms W was discovered my studies had already led me to consider 
that the ancients were probably right when they said that St. Mark had 
both preached and written his Gospel in the Latin tongue [see sub- 
scriptions to the Syriac vulgate and to some of our Greek manuscripts]. 
But this ms W in St. Mark is a perfect mine of wonderful information 
on this subject. 

My impressions to-day are that the Gospel of Mark was written 
originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately—that the 
Latin went to Latin Africa—thence to Greek Egypt, where it was 
translated into Greek. [But see the quotation further on from St. Jerome 
in connection with the testimony of Clement of Alexandria.] Hence a 
double Greek recension visible all along the line. This matter appealed 
to Blass, for he says (‘ Philology of the Gospels,’ pp. 203 and 205), ‘ To 
use a simile: reading Mark (with due attention given to the variants) 
reminds one of walking on quicksand ....for the difference of readings 
mainly rests in the expressions and does not affect the sense. But, 
nevertheless, we feel unsafe and wonder in what way such a condition of 
the text may have been produced .... But one of the authors seems to 
be Luke. Well, and then? Did Luke perhaps interpolate or revise 
Mark? No, but he translated it, as the original Mark was in Aramaic, 
or had it translated for his own use, and then revised the translation. At 
a later time Luke’s copy got into circulation and was again copied, and 
those copies went side by side with copies containing a translation made 
by somebody else... .” 

Thus Blass. I do not think there is much which points to an 
Aramaic original. The whole matter can be understood if to St. Peter’s 
Semitic background we apply Mark’s Latin surroundings when he wrote, 
but Blass clearly apprehended the double Greek recension and was 
striving to account for it. 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 127 


As to D*, a and d. 


At first it seemed as if d@ were the king, but there are certain 
independent features in D™ which stamp it as of almost equal importance. f 
For instance in Sir John Hawkins’ list of words peculiar to St. Mark’s 
Greek, we find among them (p. 200) eripartw and emtovvtpexw, but in 
D* for evipamres (11. 21) that Ms has emccvvpartes and W* emouvare. 
So that this form emo vy» applies to another word in the Marcan Gospel as 
well as emvcurtpexym. Esiovvparre stands opposite adsutt (the Latins 
hardly vary here at all) and adsutt can scarcely have influenced emovuv- 
parte. or emuvvamre. Excepting ermcvvayw (Matt., Mark, Luke) no 
other verb in the New Testament is compounded with emovy-, besides 
emiauvTpey® above mentioned, peculiar to Mark’s Greek text at ix. 25. 
For this the Vulgate and most Latins have concurrentem, but a =conlisissit, 
‘while b di =concurreret, f ff2 =conewrrit, k = concurrunt, g =concurret, 
and 6 =concurrebat. [pamre: 71 only in ii. 21.] 

Of course D* of to-day is not the exact original of D*® foundation 
text. We have a splendid illustration of this at xii. 88 in one verse. 
D* (against d) adds ava. This a (alonet of Latins) maintains with the 
addition of semul. But two lines below D* goes wild (against d’s Latin 
et qué volunt) by writing xat twv TeXwvev (for tov Gedovtwv). This a 
opposes, having quit volunt. The addition of e¢ in dis due to some curious 
reaction § which, however, did not conform d to D®" or D®* to d, so that we 
have the opportunity to, observe a process at work which is quite 
interesting. This is followed in the same verse by another illustration 
which seems helpful. For D® 2°° add rovetoOae at the end of the verse 
as d facitis, so that D® d hold together. How do the Latins stand ? 
The Greek expression is: xat aomacpous ev Tats ayopais dependent on the 
original toy Gedovrwy. A few cursives only add ¢:AovvTwy before acmacpous 
(borrowed from Luke) as do syr pesh and syr sin, while sah repeats tev 
Gehovrwy (AsU ECOTEM) as arm and c: “qui volunt salutari” but ¢ 
abandons aoracpous (tous acracpous sah boh) or salutationes of b d e for 
salutart of akigqrs [above acracuous| thus making a composition of 
salutationes and salutari and adding volunt. Here therefore b d ¢ have 





+ From this Greek the Latin of a seems to have been made, quite independently of 
a. For a beautiful although infinitesimal example see vi. 18 Uecet te says a, and so D* 
alone: «fear ge right opposite d: “licet tibi.” All other Greeks and Latins use go: 
and tbi. So in other small places, as vi. 35 ndn de D* 2°° 604 a, but xa dy the Greeks 
and d. See xii. 37 bentissime for libenter by a and D d: wat ydews. In the very next 
verse xii. 38 a follows D* alone, against d, for a has simul alone and D* apa alone. At 
ix. 31 D d (as we have them) make bold to remove the apparently pleonastic aroxrarGes 
(following eamoxrevovciv). The only support is from x** y** andack. All Greek uncials, 
including WY retain, as do 6 and the rest of the Latins. That a is found bere with 
D is significant, Here 5 doubtless holds the base and not d. 

} As we pass through the press von Soden teaches us that his new Greek ms 050, 
sister to D, does not have aya. But he obscures the Latin issue by grouping ab rz 
together, whereas b r 7 do not have simul asa. Sod™ has roe bat fin. 

§ Add for +xai ante rev Gedovrwy von Soden’s € 1091 (Sinai 186, Greg. 1228). 


128 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


the simple salutationes dependent on the original qui volunt; against 
salutart of atk gr é&vg. Wearrive at the conclusion then that moveco Gas 
and facitis of DB Sod°™ 2°* and d is a late accretion to both D and d, for a 
rejects it, unless indeed salutari of the others is supposed to be a composi- 
tion of avracpous trovecc Oat, but then salutare would have been used. 

At xiii. 14 D adds te avayewoone after 0 avayewvwonwy voto. a also 
adds quidquid legit and n quod dicit, while d has quod legit, so that although 
D d.here are together, D* here probably reacted on d latin, as d differs 
from a ”.who probably translated from D’s Greek. At xiii. 22 a@ has 
facient with d and D Sod™™ 2°° romaovow against Swcovew of other Greeks 
and Latins. xii. 33 @ alone follows D® against d and all else omitting 
eotiv fin. (Cf c¢ which however turns the phrase.) 

I wish to add here a most important matter which I think has never 
been pointed out before. Where D and d differ we can frequently 
discover, by the help of a, which reading is basic and which is not in 
D or d. 

Thus at xiv. 1 D d and a ff, and only these omit xau ta afypa. This 
occurs in connection with one of St. Mark’s well-known doublets or pairs. 
jw 88 rb wacxa Kal Ta dfyua.t We know from the absence of other D d 
sympathisers like 2° etc t that this must be a correction to remove apparent 
pleonasm, but how came both D and d to excise the words? The answer 
is that Greek D reacted here on small d. We know this because it is the 
Greek of D and not the Latin of d which a habitually follows. Further 
proof offers in the same verse. D* and a7 omit ev doAw but d has it. 
Here therefore D* did not react on d latin, although a, as usual, follows 
D’s Greek. There are several other places where at first sight a would 
seem to strengthen the small combination D a d, but as a matter of fact 
it is now proven that D simply overflowed back as a (wrong) influence 
on d, and @ is merely an accessory and a witness that this influence came 
from D* only. 

This is well illustrated again at xiv. 25 where D Sod*° 2°¢ have ov un 
mpocOw mew as a (differing in latin expression from d@) d and / only, for ov 
pm mo of all others. This Greek of D, found only in a/ otherwise, 
must have flowed back on to d. 

The retranslation of a (and k and sometimes 7%) is often illustrated. 
It occurs again immediately after at the opening of xiv. 26. ‘I'he Greeks 
maintain cas vuryncavtes, the Latins and the vulgates ‘‘ et hymno dicto,” 


but exceptionally : 
a = Et cum hymnos dixissent 


4 = Et cum laudem dixissent 
k = Et cum heminum dixisset 


t Only ¥ Sod'* vary the order nv de ra afupa kat ro wacxa, while k r, do not like the 
doublet and have pascha azwmorum or azemorum as vg® and (gat). 
{~ Von Soden’s 050 appears also to go against D d a ff here. 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 129 


+ = Ktcum hymnum........t 
i = Et ymnum dicentes 
5 = Et umnisantes 
In the same chapter again at xiv. 32 D @ d alone substitute avros 
(illis) for rots wa@yntats avtou of all others. 
At xiv. 44. @ (and c k r) go with D®™ only edSwxev (SeSwxev Sod™) by 
writing dedit for dederat of all others and d. 
But at xiv. 47 Dad together omit tov mapeotnxotwy showing D* has 
here influenced d. 

At xiv. 67. where D® alone omits «at before ov, we know it is an 

error, because a does not follow. 

At xiv. 70. —Tw metpw D a d, 

and 72, —ote mpw arextopa gwvycas dis we atrapynon D a d, they 
are seen together. 

Further, when, as at xiv. 48, both D and d@ omit ws and tanquam 
before evi AnoTnv, we must assume this to be a common error in the last 
copying of the Ms, as neither a & nor any others omit. We thus learn 
that at the last copying even, an effort was made to bring Latin and 
Greek into conformity. 

And when » replaces a (as it does from xv. 22 onwards) we must 
note that n does not support D® at xv. 34 wvedicas with ci k(?) but has 
me dereli[quisti] against them. Thus probably D* and ¢ ¢ k are con- 
spiring in an error against the mass, and 7 controls the old D® as a did 
before. 

Observe the independence of n throughout this section, and especially 
xvi. 4 amotum for revolutum of the rest of the itala, which although 
agreeing with the azroxexvAcopevov of D®* (d =revolutum) against amroxexv- 
diorat of most, yet appears to hang on a different treatment. 

Note also at xvi. 6 where D(W) has ¢oBeroOas (for exPap Pero Ge) and d 
timere, that n follows suit with ¢imere against expavescere of the others 
(& stupetis). 

As to b: 


The most important Latin witness in St. Mark for ‘“ control” is 8 
[4 is wanting i.—viti.] a feature which Buchanan has quite forgotten to 
mention in his new and valuable edition of .t The text of b (far 
removed from fin this Gospel) is a most ancient one. All the O.L. join 





{ Observe in Mark iii. 82 (where exayro bothered @ ¢ so much that they deliberately 
alter the sentence, although no others know any different verb) that N alone of Greeks 
has mpos avroy oxdos (for wept avrov oxdos). We look to d and find circa ewm turba as 
the rest of Latins. We look to D and find mpos roy oyAd and do not understand it. 
But 6 says alone of Latins ap illum turba, so that Nb are giving us what D means to give, 
roy standing for avroy. See Harris, ‘ Study of Codex Bezae,’ page 20, where he shows 
Aov for Aoyov twice and Aes for Aeyers. Add Aes for Aeyers John xiv. 9 and frum for 
fructum in d at John xv.2. We find even we for weps (Me. v. 27). (Cf. xiv. 58 roy vaov 
(—Tovrov) Ds alone against hunc templum by d opposite.) 

K 


130 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


D dso largely in Mark as a unit (with the exception of a) that it has a 
very deep significance. But d goes farther than this and invites inspec- 
tion as to the fundamental d@ text sometimes preserved in 6 where d has 
lost it. As toa the condition is quite different as sketched above. It 
would seem as if a had been independently translated into Latin from a 
Greek which had already been made from the original Latin. 

Long and long ago critics found certain Latin words graecised 
especially the property of St. Mark, as orexovAatap, xevtuptor, Ecorns,t but 
explained them away. Siz John Hawkins calls attention (p. 132) to v. 23 
ecyatws exe, saying in a note “This expression is condemned by 
Phrynicus, see Thayer’s Lexicon,” but if retranslation from the Latin 
‘‘in extremis est” it could not very well be rendered exyatwseorw. As to 
4vyarpiov mentioned just above this, jiliola isfoundin e. Now the problem 
is both simplified and complicated by some of the extraordinary agreements 
of W* with ¢ latin. How it will all work out I cannot say at present. 

It is quite unnecessary to repeat that St. Mark probably wrote his 
Gospel at Rome for Roman readers, and it is beside the mark to say that 
Greek was the current or polite language of the city or that the names 
of the early leaders and Popes were Greek names. The oral Gospel 
appealed first as thoroughly to the oppressed servants and slaves of the 
Roman households as to their masters; and what was the language of 
the common people? Of the converted butchers, bakers and purveyors 
to these households? Of the masons, blacksmiths, carpenters etc? Of 
the Christian attachés and employés of the baths and places of public 
entertainment ? The catacombs tell us, and the inscriptions speak in no 
uncertain voice that the Latin and Greek tongues were in a state of flux 
in St. Mark’s day. We find Greek words transliterated to Latin, and 
conversely Latin words expressed in Greek letters. We find ¢nduxicoipos 
for felicissimus, Bié for bixit or vixit, pedo for filio; or cosmou for xocpov, 
ttatra for eratpa, Theos for @eos and so forth. In fact some could speak 
Greek but only knew the Latin alphabet, others, while knowing enough 
Latin to speak it, could only write the Greek letters.{ Hence a Latin, 


+ Cf also Mk. vi. 8 py ets thy Covqy yadxoy (neque in zona aes”) as against St. 
Luke (ix. 3 “ pyre apyuptov”). Cf also Mk. xii. 42 Newra dvo o eotw Kodparrns (duo 
minuta quod est guadrans,” the lowest Roman coin) as against St. Luke (xxi. 2 ‘ duo 
Aexra tantum, praeter D +0 eat xodpavrns”’). 

t We find the very hybrid graeco-latin words bisomus, trisomus and quadrisomus in 
common use in the catacombs (to the exclusion of other expressions) for burial space for 
two bodies, three bodies, and four bodies. 

Sometimes A occurs for D throughout a Latin inscription (see No. 142 in Marucchi 
and others). 

We come across such a thing as this: 

KALEMERE DEVS REFRI 
GERET SPIRITVM TVV®M 
VNA CVM SoRoRiIS TVAE HILARAE. 

Or benemerenti, et, and edie in the middle of a Greek inscription, and observe 

the Greek rho in benemerentt. 


THE LATIN VERSION OF &T. MARK’S GOSPEL. 131 


or & Graeco-Latin written Gospel seems a priori to have been perfectly 
natural and called for under the circumstances; and not necessarily a 
bilingual, but two separate editions, one in Greek and one in Latin. The 
Latin original, if represented by 6 and d, seems to have parted company 
with the Greek original very soon if not immediately. It reappears in a 
and part of & to some extent, but a is a fresh translation from the Greek 
as k seems to be in many places.t{ The consensus of Latins with b d 





AHMHTPIC ET A€ONTIA 
CEIPIKE PEIAIE BENEMEPEN 


TI MNHC@HC IHCOYC 
O KYPIOC TEKNON. 


We find septem (ZEPTE sic) with ANN in the middle, at the end of a Greek 
inscription : 





EPMAICKE WC Z 
HC €N GEW KYPIE! 
W XPEICTW ANN 
GWPOYM X MHCW 
POYM ZEPTE. 


In the middle of a Greek inscription (Marucchi No. 344) occurs BONI@ATIE, 
From the catacombs of Domitila, observe two Latin lines followed by Greek in 
Latin letters : 
ANNIBONVS FECIT SIBI ET SvVIS 
LOCVM HOMIBVS N_ VIIi INTRO FORMAS 
€C TON E€MON PANTON TVTO €MON. 





This lasted a long while. There is a Latin inscr. in Greek letters throughout, 
dated 269 a.p. 


KWCOYAE KAYAIW €A MATEPNW NONEIG 
NOBENBPEIBOYC AEl € BENEPEC AOYNA XXIII 
AEYKE @MIAIE CHBHPE KAPECCEME MOCOYETE 
EA EICMEIPITW CANKTW TOYW. 


On the shorter and earlier inscriptions such Latin names as Flavus or Flavius, 
Septimius etc are written in Greek characters : 


For instance: PA - CABEINOC - KAI 
TITIANH - AAEAPOI 


And again : CENTMIOC MPAITESTATOC 
KAI KIAIANOG 


Or ANNIA ®AYCTEINA 
Or ANNIOZ KATOZ 
Or AIKINIA ®AYCTEINA 


t A good example occurs at xiv. 54 where the 23 uncials and W write nv ovv (or 
avy) xaOnpevos but D tt vg qv xabnpevos. Tischendorf observes ‘zt?! vg erat sedens, 
sedens, sedebat; & accurate fuit simul sedens,” but he should have said...k ew 
graeco fuit simul sedens.”’ The Latins all hang together against any consedens or 
simul sedens except k, which as we thus see is bringing back his Latin into conformity 
with the Greek, while D* alone follows the Latin. 


K 2 


132 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


shows that the Latin as an entity remained knit together. With the 
Greek it is quite different. D reappears in Egypt in W but with 
modifications incident to a passage of d through Carthage previously, 
where it had become modified to ¢ and e. The Greek of NB is quite 
different again from that of DW, although N shows occasional traces of 
W e, and B of W or D. Did the Greek of D perish by shipwreck or 
otherwise on its way to Alexandria? t Or did they use at first only 
St. Matthew and St. Luke in those parts? The early Fathers are 
strangely silent as to quotations from St. Mark. 

Among one of the first distinct quotations from St. Mark (v. 34) 
it is noticeable that Clem4'™ gives us amedOe evs ecpnvny for uraye «as 
eipnynv. [Luke says zopevov.] The Latin is vade. See later for remarks 
as to Clement in connection with what St. Jerome says of Mark’s 
personal arrival at Alexandria, bringing his Gospel with him. 


As toc: 


¢ is also a valuable adjunct for control as to the original base 
bcde. Its glosses are reproduced by W®, and it has many Egyptian 
characteristics. Whether it ever had an accompanying Greek column 
we do not know, but the corruption per labia for per manus in vi. 2 
probably arose from confounding yetewv or yethwy with yeipwr. One 
thing is very certain, aeth and ¢ are very close in Mark. Among other 
places observe Mark vi. 38 —xas yvovtes c aeth and syr sin. The latter 
adds force to the basic age of the recension. 

Then, as shown beyond, Tertullian and aeth share the otherwise 
unique reading in xiv. 13 inventetis hominem for occurret vobis homo. 

Besides this c and Tert are in apposition in other Gospels. 

A curious coincidence occurs at Mark ii. 26, where for eson\dev, W 
alone substitutes exreAOov, not supported by our Latin witnesses, but by 
Jerome with ingressus (Ep ad Pamm: “Idem Marcus inducit ad 
Pharisaeos salvatorem loquentem ‘Nunquam legistis . . . quomodo 
ingressus domum Dei sub Abiathar .. .’”’). 


St. Mark in the Irish Latin texts. 


One striking fact deserves notice, and that is that when the Irish 
text of the four Gospels was copied St. Mark’s Gospel alone appears in 
almost pure Vulgate dress. Why was this? It must be concerned with 


t Observe v. 87 mapaxoAdovénoa: DW fam 1 28 124 2pe 604, axodovéyoa: AKTI* 
al®, guvaxodovngat NB rell. While the Latins use sequi, W elides per avrov, and e 
has tntrotre with Sod™ acedOew. But the point is that mapaxodovéyoa bears directly 
on the wording of the end of Mark, for at xvi. 17 sapaxodovénce: occurs, avd this has 
been challenged as not being a Marcan compound or occurring elsewhere in the Gospel, 
wheress DW corfirm it in Mark v. 37, at any rate as to their Greek. 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 133 


the irreconcileable differences observed between the two separate Greek 
lines or recensions to which I wish to direct attention. Not being able 
to decide to follow the itala, so largely interwoven with the b d base, 
which disagreed with the Greek line of NB, except in spots, it was 
evidently considered judicious to swallow St. Jerome’s revision almost 
completely for St. Mark. That there was a reason for it is obvious. 
Have we found the true reason in assuming a double Greek recension ? 
This must be further investigated, but I see no other outlet. 


Base of St. Mark’s Gospel. 


So much has been written concerning St. Mark’s Gospel that it may be 
thought that the subject is threadbare. This hardly seems to be the case, 
but I would fain bring forward something new if possible. What I suggest 
has already found circuitous admission by other minds. For instance, 
in Sir John Hawkins’ Horae Synopticae, p. 207, after referring to the pro- 
portion of classical and non-classical words in the four Gospels, he says: 

“It thus appears that the non-classical words (like the non-Septuagintal 
words) occur with considerable more frequency in the special vocabulary of 
St. Mark than in those of the other synoptists.” 

In other places he agrees with most authorities in giving priority to 
the Marcan Gospel as regards its foundation, where roughnesses, not of 
diction but of the manner of presenting facts, have been smoothed by 
St. Matthew and St. Luke. 

Taking these two observations together, they make for a dater Greek 
than that of Matthew and Luke, with an earlier base. Now if that base 
be Latin the matter is to a large extent explained. Little things like 
exyatov (Mark) for vorepov (Matt. Luke) then assume a greater force 
than we have been disposed to give them. 

Sir John emphasises the historic present as being one of Mark’s 
strong preferences. Indeed, this also bears upon the point. For the aits 
of d often bear opposite in D® evrev, while the itala coincides with the ait 
of d.{ Further than this, where the strong Alexandrian preferences for 
the historic present and imperfect over the aorist make themselves felt 








{ This matter deserves considerable attention. Compare Dr. Nestle's too brief 
notice of the subject in Journ. Theol. Studies, July 1911, p. 607, and consider the figures 
given for 6 and d in St. Mark in connection with such a Roman writer as Plautus, whose 
plays are crammed full of até and ais and aio. Cf. Amphitruo I. i. 188-189. 

Mere. Ai’ n’ vero? 
Sos. Aio enimvero. 
Mere. Verbero! 
Sos. Mentiris nunc jam. 
Merc. At jam faciam ut verum dicas dicere. 
Sos. Quid eo ’st opus? 

Notice also the frequent appearance in Mark of epyerac (for the indeterminate Latin 

venit, present or perfect) against the synoptic nev. 


134 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


in NB in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is different in 
St. Mark, and although I chronicle a fair number of these additional 
Greek historic presents for 8 or B in St. Mark, the situation is more 
confused there and sometimes the aorist is preferred to the imperfect. 

Before we can deal with the list of ‘‘ Rude, harsh, obscure or unusual 
words or expressions which may therefore have been omitted or replaced 
by others” (op. cit. pp. 1381/4) we must consider more fully what the 
Latin texts have to say, and variations in Greek mss. Thus, as to the first 
example, 

i. 10 cxtfopevous, did St. Mark himself really use this? The Latins 
baf frog: Gah ir re & (hiant ¢ q) all say apertos (even a adaperiri, 
ce aperiri). So D* sol. 

Then, ii. 4 ete xpaBatros. This surely belongs among the Latinisms, 
cited lower down. 

As to ii. 21 ewtparre, we must observe D’s ertovyparrre: and W’s 
emtouvants a8 to retranslation, or as to two lines of Greek. 

xi. 1. etow tives wde Tov extyxoTov, “an awkward arrangement of 
words” says Sir John Hawkins, but the mss vary here 
considerably. (See ante p. 100.) 

xiii. 11. un mpopepesvare, ‘a verb not found elsewhere in N.T., LXX, 
or classical writers.” But if cogitare were original we can 
understand it. (a here retranslating, as usual, has prae- 
medetare (cf. wpopedetate VI), k exceptionally satagare but 
both a and & have been influenced by Greek recensions as 
compared to the other Latins in St. Mark). 

16. 0 es Tov aypov, a very probable Latin construction. 

xiv. 31. exmeptcows f “is found nowhere else in Greek.” 

Perhaps from a Latin colloguialism ‘‘ tanto magis”’ as indeed 
re-rendered by a (while & has “ plura loquebatur magis dicere”’ 
against amplius of most vett). 

Rui. 19. evovras yap at nuepar exewat Orns (or Orues). This is far 
more difficult, in fact insoluble from our available Latin 
materials, which do not agree with the Greeks, who here seem 
to be a unit, yet an original dies illi tribulationes, meant for 
dies illi tribulation?s which c ff, i J hold, might have led to the 
Greek, which is opposed bya b dk n q r “ (in) illis diebus 
tribulationes ” and which in these may not represent an original 
base but revision. 

Unfortanately, for such Greek words—unique in Mark—as oxwdn€, 
otac.iacrns we have no synoptic parallelisms to use for purposes of exact 
comparison. oracwaarys of Mark xv. 7 (ueta twv otactactwy Sedepevos) 
is however beautifully confirmed by St. Luke’s 8a ctacw (xxiii. 19). 


{ It is exceedingly curious to find that the notorious latinisers 56-58-61, apparently 
alone among cursives, join NBCD¥"” for exmepicows. Add Paris*, 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 135 


cavdadia Mark vi. 9 (not appearing in Sir John Hawkins’ list of words 
peculiar to St. Mark, probably because it occurs in Acts xii. 8) may be 
emphasised as compared to the vrodyuata of Matt. x. 10. 

In Mark d i have sandalia, b f | ¢ = sandaliis, so that probably soleis 
of a, soleas of e, caligulas of c, galliculas of ff. are retranslations. 

vmoknviov Mark xii. 1, unique as to Mark and as against Anvoy of 
Matt. xxi. 83, is indeterminate. 

In Mark bc df g,t (g locum) 6 vg have lacum (a fr i & torcular). 

In Matihew a 6 ¢ d (¢ torcularem) ff, g 1 ¢ vg have torcular ( ih 
lacum). 

Lacum would appear original in Mark, and torcular in Matthew. 
But it is almost impossible to draw any inferences, although u7oAqvov 
may be considered more probable for lacus. 


Important example of harmony among the Latins at St. Mark vi. 36. 


One of the most striking places is the eyywota of D 604 and all latt 
PROXIMAS at vi. 36 against xvxdw of the other Greeks. Not a single Latin 
tries to express xuxdw otherwise here in Mark.t But now turn to the 
parallel in Luke ix. 12 and see a very different state of things. The 
Greek of both passages is the same: 

Mark vi. 36. awodvoov avtous wa amedOovtes ets Tous KUKAW aypous Kat 


KOUAS . o. 
Luke ix. 12. avodvaov rov oydov wa tropevbertes t €lg TAS KUKAW KwWEAS Kat 
aed Oovtes aYPOUS... 


(Matthew omits cur.) 
In Mark then the Latins have: in pRoxtMas villas et vicos.t 
But in Luke a = adjacentes vicos et agros 
be fil qr = circa castella et villas 
# = circa castella et vicos 
c = in castella adjacentia 
d = in proxima castella et villas 
6 = in circum castella et villas 
J = in castella et villas quae in circuitu sunt 
vg = in castella villasque quae circa sunt 
I submit that this has a distinct bearing on a common Latin base in 
Mark of prozimas, and a common Greek base in Lake of cvxXo, when 
we see in Linke the variations circa, adjacentes, adjacentia, proxima, in 





Tt Cf. also xi. 82 ndeioav (pro erxov) DW Sod 2” and oducr 604 = sciebant of i¢?! 
against habebant of all vulgates. The proof of retranslation is here afforded by 604. 
{ All have in prowtmas. a = in proximas villas et municipia 
bef f2q = in proximas villas et castella 
@7t1= in proximas villas et (+in 2) vicos 
7, = in proximas villas et vicinos 


‘ in vicos . 
(hianteka) 8={ ic Tous KUKAW arpoye } *@ 


136 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


circum, quae circa sunt, and quae in circuitu sunt, against the steady 
proximas in Mark. 
For the rest I must refer to the following lists. 


And first as to Retranslation in W. 


The following is a list of some of the apparent retranslations in W. 


It is startling enough, but there is much more to be observed. 
Mark 
7 1. 27. eOavpaloy (pro BayBnOncav) 


44, xa8apotov (pro xaBapicpov) 
ii. 4. mpocedOev (pro mporeyytcat) 
12. Oavpagery avtous (pro c&tatacat tavras) 
23. ecrrappevwr (pro c7ropiwy) 
iii. 11. ov (pro eBewper) [Negl. Sod. W. Male Sod. deD esdov, habet 
eBewpovr | 
30. exer avrov (pro exer) 
34. xuKAw avtou (pro KuKXw Tous Tept avTor) 
iv. 4. ta opvea (pro ta mrerewa) 
20. aemrrovres (pro otrapevtes) 
32. avker (pro avaBatver) 
v. 81. cuvrpiBorta (pro cuvO\.Bovra) 
vi. 5. ouxere (pro exee ovdeusav) 
18. e€ereurrov (pro e&eBadror) 
81. Aourov (pro odvyov) 
vii. 10. aberwy (pro xaxoNoywv) 
19. Scavorav (pro xapdiavr) 
81. ess rnv Sexatroduy (pro Sexarrodews) 
33. mpoodaPBoperos (pro arrohaBopevos) 
viii. 11. am (pro 7ap) 
23. evirrucas (pro wrvsas) 
ix. 8. mepuBreropevor (pre meptBreyrapevor) 
11. re ovy (pro ore prin) 
82. epwrnoa: (pro erepwrrnaat) (al) 
45. xovov (pro amroxowov) 
49. adia ynOnoerat (pro atucOncerat) 
x. 22. amo tov Aoyou (pro ere Tw Aoyo) 
85. acrnowpeda (pro arrnowper) 
xi. 12. avpsov (pro emavpuov) 
25. avn (pro adn) [ Negl. Sod] 
80. am (pro «& pr.) (al) 
xii. 1. efwpufev (pro cas wpvéev) 
3. edipay +-Kat amrextivay (346) 
10, 26. aveyywxate (pro aveyvere) 
Kili. 2. apeOn ovde SiadrvOnceras (pro KatarvOn) 
12. avacrnoovrat (pro eravactncovta) (348 Sod'**) 
xiv. 6. xozov (pro Korrovs) 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 137 


Mark 
xiv. 27. cxopmicOnoerat (pro SiacxopriaOncerat) [ Negl. Sod] 


30. apynon (pro amapyyncn) 
32. eepyovras (pro epyovtat) 
583. ovvropevorras (pro cuvepyovTat avtw) (Sod?) 
61. evrAoynpevou (pro evAoynTov) and so V 28 c*" 
70. wepieatnxotes (pro tapectwres) (cf. a) 
Xvi. 1. esceAOovcat (pro edOovaar) 
5. Oewpovaw (pro evdov) 

In ch. i-v., where the ¢ and bc e sympathy is paramount, the 
retranslation is very thick. Afterwards it shades off but does not 
disappear. What is there is not only retranslation from Latin, but from 
the other Versions. Of these 45 cases only 5 find any support. 

Observe also in iii. 1 a genitive absolute cas evceAOovtos avrov for Kat 
etondOev, which cannot come from the parallels, and must be from b ¢ e 
“et cum introisset.” The others have “et introivit.”” Cf ix. 28, where 
for “et cum introisset” of all Latins the Greeks only vary between 
exoeAOovtos avtou and evaeXOovra autor. 

Consider also yeveras and eyerero: 

At iv. 837 D writes eyevero with which Tisch groups all the Latins, while 
ywetas (so W) is the reading of the other Greeks. But 
observe the reverse at : 

11.15. ywerae only NBLW 33 2°¢ 604 892* W-H d: Sod tat, and 

eyevero D and all the rest. [Om. Sod. | 

Tt seems clear that factus est or facta est or factum est is 
rendered either ywveras or eyevero. And the way in which the 
MSS occasionally go apart looks like a Latin base out of which 
the variations sprung. 

When I published Evan 604 it became apparent that there was a 
reason for the Latinisms in that ms, when we took into consideration the 
sympathetic bond between D 2°¢ and 604. It became clear to me how 
ancient was this Latin base. Lest some should still think that the 
Latinisms and evidences of retranslation in 1 13 28 2° and 604 are late, 
I have exhibited first a typical list in the great Ms W. 

Now there is much less of this in 28 and not more as we come down 
the line, as far as actual age (not actual text) is concerned. But to show 
how the matter is interlocked I will exhibit these examples. 


We find in 28 at: 


i. 19. eazaaccuntoonie (pro xataptifovtas), but this is visible in 124 
[non fam] although not in W. 


xii. 84. cuvartas (= cvvetas) pro vovveyws apparently unique by 28. 
xiv. 1. xpatnowow Kat (pro cparnoavres) = latt syrr (et Sod minn’). 
As to 28 and 604: 
iil. 14. Here 28 and 604 conspire alone to give us eps avrov (pro per 
avTov) 


vi. 


vi. 


vi. 


ix. 


XVi. 


22. 

3. 
37. 
42. 


6. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


As to 604 alone: 


. Atay (pro SuxeTva) 

. €Aadouv (pro edeyov) 

. Auuvns (pro Paracans) (Cf. Merx de rupy. et Oar.) 

. eTnpnoav (pro expatnaav) [Cf. D vii. 4 rnpew alone for xpatew] 
. oace (pro ndeccav DW ; sciebant latt) 


2°¢ alone : 


. autos (pro pet avtwv), where D 33 604 Paris® have mpos autous 


Om. Sod®™ #, Om, per avtwy Kat Neyer 2738. 
2P¢ and 604: 


. wa paywow (pro gaye sec.) Cf.abq. Cf. syr sin. 
. eres (pro reGets) 

. avactncerat (pro eyepOnoetar) [Sod adds °°] 

. kav (pro cat ev) Add Sod" and D («ac eav) 


D 28: 


. Onralopevats (pro Onrafovaais) 


D are; 


. ev peon TH Garacon (pro ev pw. THs Oadacons) 
. coTW f Kapdia (pro eyete Tnv Kapdiav) Add Sod 
. wa Oavatwoovaw (pro es To Oavatwoat) et 1 Sod™ LauraA 


D 604 = 


. eyytota (pro xuxdo) lati proximas 


D 2° 604: 


. Kat éXavvortas (pro ev Tw ehavvev) [Sod adds °° ?] 
. WraTetats (pro ayopats) 


W 604: 


. nSuvnOncay (pro wyuvcav) Add Sod 


W 28: 


. Kndevoas (pro Kat npav) 
. eyetpetat (pro avaornoetat) Add Sod‘ 
. Suede Ante (pro Sieroyfece) Add fam 1 and Sod'**? 


. emituvatpepovar sic et W et 28 ( pro emiovvates vel emtcuvatover) 


[Male Sod de W] 


. Oinxovovoay (pro kas Sinxovovr) W ; Siaxovoveat 28 [Recte Sod. 


Male Scholz S:axovnoar]- 
'W 28 2°° 604 : 


@ ovopa (pro ovopartt) [Negl. Sod 604] 
D(W): 
os (pro om) Cf. W 
ev TW ovopate (pro ert tw ov.) Add 69 Sod in nomine latt 
«Brn On (pro BeSrntac) 
DW 2°; 
poBerc Oat (pro exOauBecbe) Add 115 


THE LATIN VERSION OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 139 


and such a thing as in N: 
NW Sod? 1 13 28 2° 604: 
xii. 41. +7ov (ante yarxov) [Add Sod". Negl. Sod & ut Tisch om. 
ed] 
orin C: 
vi. 19. e€nres (pro nOerev) C latt 
or in A*: 
xul. 8, avte efvov (pro er eOvos) A*; so contra gentem bc d 8* 
vg"4, adversus gentem q. [Sod neglects A*: A*!° has er 
eOvos supra but as an afterthought. | 
or Origen: 
xii. 24. yovwoxovres (pro edotes) D Orig alone (ef. latt vett") 
not to speak of N, which has a good many personal retranslations, but 
they are involved frequently with parallels.t 

At any rate the matters in question are all easily reducible to a very 
early age. 

As to a thing like xii. 18 avactacus ove eat fam 113 28 [non DW 
rell| for avactacw pn evar this is probable retranslation, but has no 
reference to other features. 

‘We will now allow to follow a list of some of the evidence for a 
double or treble Greek recension in St. Mark as opposed to what comes 
very near a single line among the Latins. 

If ever Bishop Westcott’s dictum { holds true it is as regards the 
authorities for St. Mark’s Gospel. Jt is useless to seek the truth in any 
one document here, and although D d have an ancient base, b is found 
to share it and go beyond them in brevity, while W in connection with 
b e & and the other Latins is absolutely essential to a true understanding 
of the mixture (old as it all is) which pervades the text. NB alone 
here are more than useless. 








t It does not seem necessary to tabulate the many unique retranslations of D* from 
Latin, as they are so well known, although I know of no complete list. 

} “No authority has an unvarying value. No authority is ever homogeneous.” 
Compare also Blass (‘ Philology of the Gospels,’ pp. 58 and 70): “In reality the blame is 
to be cast upon the textual tradition and not upon the author, and we may learn from 
this quite evident case that those written copies (not to speak of editions) which we are 
accustomed to rely upon by no means deserve implicit trust. Which copies, then, do 
deserve it? No single copy at all, but if anything the tradition taken as a whole, with 
entire liberty to select in each individual case that branch of the tradition for our guide 
which shall seem to us to be in this case most trustworthy, even if it is a heretical 
witness like Marcion.” 

“ Of course, the fact that mparn in one of these passages, and A:Seprivey in the other, 
is almost universally attested, is not to be understood as being the result of one great 
deliberate action, viz., of a revision of the text made at a definite time by definite men, 
and then imposed upon the whole Christian Church. If such a revision had taken place 
in the ancient Church, like those revisions which have been made for instance at different 
times in the English Church, we should certainly hear of that fact from some of the 
numerous ecclesiastical writers whose works have come down to us.”’ 


CHAPTER V. 
Two OR MORE GREEK RECENSIONS ix St. Mark. 


‘We have now shown reasons for believing that the whole body of Western Latin 
readings go back into a single bilingual copy, the remote ancestor of the Codex Bezae; 
and we have also seen that the Greek of the Beza owes the greater part of its textual 
and grammatical peculiarities to the reflex action of tts own Latin.”—Rendel Harris, 
* Codex Bezae,’ p. 171. 

“ There are cases where a book or paper, whose actual results cannot be accepted, is 
far more valuable and suggestive than many statements of certain and indisputable facts 
are. Hicks’ paper is one of these cases; its value in method is quite distinct from its 
value in results.”—Ramsay, ‘St. Paul at Ephesus’ in 'The Church in the Roman 
Empire,’ p. 118. 


The very imperfect suggestions cffered in my ‘Genesis of the 
Versions,’ vol. I. p. 28 seq., are much more fully illustrated here. Any 
examples which seem beside the mark are amply compensated for by 
others which show a definite Latin background. 

Mark 
fi. 6. deppyy D*® pellema (Cf. p. 127 seg) | vestem depilis 7 (syr) 
tpixas = rell gr et a 
Ti. 7. nas eXeyev avrois D da (r) 
Kat exnpvocev Neyov —rell 
16. tov adergpov auto DGT et W) 28 33 372 al. it”! vg syr aeth 
7 $5 » Tovoypevos E*FHKSUVIT ect 3® ai. 
mult goth slav 
3 » «= TOV SLuL@voS AE*A min™ 
i 1 @Uf{Leovos NBLM z* al. } ar 8 copt arm 
24, odapmev NLA®™ 892 bok (hiat sah) arm aeth Orig”® Orig 
Eus™* Bas Cyr Chr™* Iren™ (Teat?™ t) Hil’ dug al. Sod 
ova BD reil e¢ W2® minn omn rell vid, latt omn et 8 
[contra A®] syr pers goth W-H™* 
31. exrewas THY yELpa KpaTnoas nyetpev avTny D bdr q (—autny) 
(f +avrnv) 
NYELpev auTHY KpaTnaas THS xe_pos _—- Rell et al. lat (tenens e) 
EXTLVaS THY YELpA Kat ETthaBopeEvos eyeipey auTny We 


li. 15. yeveras NBL W 33 2?¢ 604 892* 
eyevero D rell (Om. Sod?) | factum est att 
23. Svatropever Bar BCD 
Topever Oat W fam 13 Sod | Cf latt 
mapatropevec bat N plur 
26. per avrou DW= Sod 2 604 aj 
ovy avTo NB rell ct ® 





¢ But such circumscribed divisions I do not add to further. 
¢ But Teri™** ‘scio” doubtless ex Luc iv. 34 and Tert™ probably refers to Luke iv. 41. 


Mark 


ill. 3. tw Thy Enpay yetpa exovTe 


ibid. 


12. 


. avéavopevov DACLA et W 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 141 


NC*A Sod™°d Tisch ed™™ tat 
BL) 2° 892 @ boh sah 


Tw THY YELpa exovTe Enpay 
aeth (syr —eyovtt) Treg W-H tat 


to Enpav exovTt THY ELPA 33 

tw e€npapmevny eXovTL THY YELpa Une al. et LP tat rec. et 
Tisch vii. 

T@ eyovTe THY xXElpa eEnpaperyy D of lat 

T@ exovTL THY xXelpa Enpay WwW 


T@ THY xELpa, ExovTL eEnpappwevnY 28 124 
tw Tyv e€npappevny Xetpa exovTte Sod txt ABSQUE ULLA 


AUCTORITATE. 
. €bs DHP 131 209 238 y** 2° 
al” Paris®? 
emt x al.? [non apud Sod} 
Tpos NB plur et WP 1 al. mult | Lat: ad 
ies ; sic 118 

TT pos 

mapa fam 13 28 Sod’ 
. G@KOVOYTES NBA et W fam 1 fam 13 

892 2°* copt W-H Sod™* | audientes latt?! 

axovcavTes D® rell pl a syr arm 
. OTAVTES X (cf lat stantes) 

OTNKOVTES BC*A 28 

EOTHKOTES C’GL fam 1 124 604 892 Sod 

eaTMTES DW rell gr minn et 2°° 


kadovvtes NBC et W118 28 892 W-H Sod 
gdeovovvtes  D rell (Aadouvtes 2°°) 
Gyrouvtes A 

Om. Asda 


vocantes latt 


crescentem cd f,ilgqrd 
vg et increscentem 0b 
(mut e k) 


238 892 Sod'** 
avéavovta II unc? et SP 
28 minn tat rec. 


cum incremento a (om 2°) 
av€avopeva NB soli et W-H R-V (De ara init ??) 


. ot paOnras avrov DW Sod fam 13 28 2°° tt omn (non f ) syr 


ot Tepe avTov auv Tos Swdexa NB rell omn syr pesh vg copt aeth 

Tis 1 TrapaBodn avTn DW Sod fam 13 28 2°° tt onun et f 

Tas TrapaBoXas NBCLA 892 e¢ W-H txt (syr sin) 

Thy TapaBodnyv A unc! et [® et Sod tat 

De parabola illa vel de parabolis illis syr boh (cake) et sah 
Tov TapaBoNwy 

adeOncopat D* d f,i gr vg% aeth (adnow D) 

adeOn NBLA unc® et W2® Sod Orig 1/2 


adeOncetat AKII min alig Orig 1/2 (sah boh syr) 


21. 


31. 


382. 


39. 


26. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. aeper D 
epee W 28 
aprrate NCA (Mait.) 
aupet B plur 


(it! vg aufert vel tollit, auferet c dq) 


epxetat Pluretsyr peshlqvg Om. Sod” 
adfertur 0 aeth accendit 
anrterat TD (vis duplex) ; luc. et afferet 
katerat  W sah boh it pl d (accenditur) 
orotav WwW 
0 OTt av D 
oray N 
os oTav B plur 
ws oTav C*A 
av&et W ber (cf. ¢ q) 
avaBatre NB rell pl 
Om D di, habent xat ywerar tantum 
pipwOnre W bce ff, 
cioTra Kat pinwOnre D* aeth sah boh vgs 
owwTra TEpipLwoo NB rell, d et lati rell syr (hiat sin) 
ciara pipwoo Le [Om. claus. A 8] 
. Runpacw SABCLAII unc® Sod® Cf xv. 46 et 
pynperos DH al. et W xvi. 2. 
. Wpocedpapev W dbcetgq, r (occurrit) 
edpapey NB rell et D® 
. arraryryetAov NBCA® Paris®™ Sod. *!9 e¢ tart 
SvaryryetAov DW fam 1 13 28 604 
avaryryetNov A reli et ® minn pl et 2° 
. wpocereseyv D*, execev Sod'™ | prociditabef f,lqrs vg 
mpoomunt W fam 13 (procidens d) 
TUTE NB reil et Sod et cadens e 
aAXa pardon els TO YEipov EAOovTA Plur et W (vide post) 


ra 1 «emt TO KYEetpov ENMovea Sod 2°° 604 
1» mt TO XeLpov (~edAGovea) D* 


d and f “ngt! have sed magis deterius habebat, but b ¢ ff, only sed 
peius habebat, e sed deterius haberet, g r sed deterius habebat, a? sed 
peius deterius habebat, 5 sed magis in deterius venit. 

D alone seems to elide the verb. Possibly the expression ews was 
supposed to be sufficient without it (cf. syr®*" mut syr), but 2°° 604 
retain e\@ovea. Coptic retains the verb. 

I give this at length because there has evidently been trouble about 
the double <Adovca in ver 27 jin and ver 28. In the following verse 28 a 


large change of order obtains as to the position of «fovea. Indeed W 








} This marks the extreme limit of e’s great influence on W heretofore in Mark. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 143 


(alone) makes the one serve for both: ed@ovca Kat axovcaca Trept Tov vi ev 
Ta oyhw oriabev mato avrov eliding the second «Aovea, as D does the 


first. 


But as there is a slight space in W after eAfovoa we must treat the 


omission as in ver 28. We then get this result : 


W Kat axovoaca Tept Tov W ev TW OYAW NATO aUTOU 
q 


D 2°° axoveaca trep. Tov wv edovea orricbev Kat yYvaTo Tov tL. aUTOU eV 


TW OYAW 
d audito de ihu venit de retro et tetigit vest. ejus inter turbam 
0) » 9 99 ~9y~«etro et tetigit vest. ejus in turbam (evs Tov 


oxAov fam 13 28 N=) 
a cum audisset de Jesu venit a retro et tetigit tunic. illius inter 
turbam 
q audito de itiu venit retro et tigit vest. ejus inter turba 
b Se ey onin® ah », in turba et tetigit vest. ejus 


NB plur axovoaca (+Ta SBCA Host 33) meps tov wW edovca ev Tw oyrw 


omicbev mato . . . fam 1 Sod'™ * ¢ om ev Tw oxrw. 


Mark v. 36. tov Noyov (+ Tov B) Aadrovpevov Plur 


TOUTOV TOV NoryoY D Jatt" 
Latin = audito hoc verbo etc, but b simply audito. It looks 
as if the differences arose simply from translation from Latin. 
Amplified in retranslation by copt and vg as: “Jesus autem 
verbo quod dicebatur audito.” 


ibid. mapaxoveas NBLA*" W ¢ 892*? W-H Sod txt [ Male Sod de 2°] 


aKxovoas AD rell omn Sod et 2°° (e sil. Cronin) et verss 
37. mapaxorovOncar D*W fam 1 28124 fate bears on the wording 
are 604 of Mark in xvi. 17 
auvaxorovOncat NB rell et Sod” j Tapakon. 
axoAovlnaat AKII* minn alig; eeceA Pew Sod**, ¢ introire. 
2. SoBeca Trovrw NBCLA 892 W-H txt 
soGeca avtw = (Dv rell et W et Sod tat 
The Latins have zllc for the most part (e7 @ e) and re- 
translation is a more probable influence here for this change 
than anything else. 
5. exes rowmoar ovdentay Svvayiy = =NBCLA fam 1 [non 118] 273 
892 W-H (ex. tat. ovdeuty sic Sod) 
exes ovdemiav Trouoas Suvvayiv Dad Orig’ Hier 
exer ovdeutav Svvayiv tromoat A plur fam™ et Sod trt [Male de 


fam*] 
sed ouverte Toinacas Suvapuy W (— exer) 
9. See Latin and five varying Greek forms. 
19. quaerebat abecdigqr (hiant ek) et era C* 
volebat FT f2 1 8 vg et Gr omn rell et WA nOcrev 
20. axoveas Une et plur 
aKovoy 28 157 Paris” min al’ audiens b fir 


axoveas is much more correct here, therefore how came axovewy 


into 28 al. except via Latin ? 


144 


Mark 


vi. 24, 


25. 


36. 


7 40. 


50. 


51. 


55. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


tou Barrilovtos NBLA™ 2° [non 28] + Sod! et Sod** 

tou Bartictou DW rell omn minn et latt copt 

tov Barrifovros Ti 604 892 only! 

tov Bantiotou NBA 2° rell! 

eyyora. D 604 et tt vg proximas (praeter § om. Habet 
vicos supra Kudo !) 

KUKA® NBW reil 

[Observe in this verse +a before ayopacwow D* alone 
apparently with Paris”; d has e¢ not ut] 

KaTG exaTov Kat Kata TevT. NBD 21 boh (literatim) W-H Sod. 
ava 5, = 5, ava ,, A rell unc minn et sah (literatim) 
P (—ava prim) kat ava N W (—ava sec 38 clr Orig) —ava bis a. 

The Latin per. ..per serves for this, and there could not be a 
more certain place for bohairic influence than this. Boh uses 
KATA-.- KATA literatim, while sah has na..-NA OF NAN 
-. taunt. W also uses ava (once) and not xara. 
eAar, wet avtov Plur, but edad. rpos avtouvs Dt 33 604, 
and avros 2°. “Ad eos” ad f ffi q 17, Ad illos c, but b = 
“illis.” 

I refuse absolutely to connect this with a “ provincialism ” 
as Gregory and Souter imply by their criticism of other 
examples adduced previously. This is simply a double 
recension, and 6 seems to hold the original ‘‘illis” (as 2°° 
avtois) whence per avtwv in translation. 

In the verse following \vav is omitted by DW." Sod “4 1 28 
2734 604. Here W comes to join us (rather exceptionally 
hereabouts) and with 0 ‘“‘abundantius” (against the latin plus 
magis) witnesses to a base without Wav. The Latin plus 
magis, or magis plus of c can equally well be a translation of 
the Greek ex mepiocou or ex tepiccws (repicaws D) without 
dav. I see two recensions here. [Confuse Sod fam I*.] 
xeopay NBLA Sod *#m 44 33 892 Paris” copt W-H Sod tzt. 
(Again the same group which we have charged with other 
matters hereabouts, so that the issue is very square as to who 
holds and who does not hold the original base) against 
mepixwpov DW une rell et SP et 28 2" 604 minn. 

The Latin of dis merely regionem it is true, as of ¢é”, but 
b-q (together proving their base) say confinem regionis, so that 
either this reproduces wepuywpoy, or if regionem be basic the 
double Greek recension is accounted for. 








+ Tisch quotes 2° for xara as does Horner following him, but Cronin does not 


report this nor von Soden and Belsheim prints ava uncorrected by Cronin. As Paris” deserts 
both N and B here (it generally sides with one or the other) xara seems pretty clearly a 
preference of NBD, for Origen opposes with ava. 


t Tisch writes avrots here in error as to D. Add Paris for xpos avrovs. 


Mark 


ibid fin. 


vi. 56. 


vil. 3. 


tbid. 


ibid, 


. axovaate BDHI Sod 21 2° 892 W-H & Sod txt 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 145 


Here are any amount of variations, all bearing on retranslation 
and consideration, the actual basic reading being very doubtful. 
Kat ogo. (—av) SDA 1 88 Paris” Sod'*? ** contra B rell nar 


ogot av (vel ear). 


muxva NW O (subinde) f g2 l vg goth copt 
syr aeth 
muyun BD(avepun) rell et 2H minn 
(ruypw Sod) et ¢ foi gr Orig 
(primo d, momento a. Om A6& sah syr sin. Hiant ¢ k) 
Subinde of b if basic, as is possible, may have caused the 
trouble. At any rate retranslation is quite possible here. W 
seems to show that e & probably opposed BD here, but what 
they read must remain uncertain. [See my edition of the 
‘Morgan Gospels,’ p. lviii.] 


crebro pugillo aur 


. pavriswovtat NB 40 53 71 86 179 237 240 244 259 Huthym 


Bantiswovtas DA pl et W2® minn al. et Paris” Orig. 

As to pavrifw cf Hebr ix. 13 19 21 x. 22, but especially 
(not in Concordances) Apoc xix. 13 pepavticpevoy P, eppavtic- 
pevov Hipp, mepipepavticpevoy N° and mepipepaypevoy N* (for 
BeBappevov) showing that NB probably made a deliberate 
change above at Mark vii. 4. In the Apoc the Latins agree 
as to “sprinkling.” [Cf. Merx, p. 70 ad loc. Me. vii. 4. | 
Tnpew D i d et it®' vg servare, 
xparew B rell ef W2® minn omn vid sed b tenere 

There must be a reason for these things, and that reason 
has already been suggested. Unfortunately here a (which I 
have shown elsewhere was probably retranslating from the 
Greek of D) does not express it ‘‘ quae acceperunt tradita.” 
Whether we are to regard b’s “‘ tenere”’ here as basic I do not 
know. c has servare and e k are wanting. Above, tenentes of 
d latt = xpatovyres of all Greeks and D, so that tenere of b 
may well be basic, rnpev simply D’s translation, and servare 
retranslation from D. (Cf. ix. 10 erypnoay pro exparnoay 
604 alone.) 


. Tas yepow DW 28 2° soli vid | must indicate a translation 


xEpowy Rell, change in all probability 


axovere ®& rell et W minn et Paris” audite laté 


. TOV oLKoy NA (D) al. pauc sah boh syr ae likely from re- 


oLKov B plur et W translation 


9. excepyeras DF 


ecorropeveran Rell et W (a introiit wt latt rell) 
e&epxetae D* 
extropevetas B plur (qropeverar A, exmopevovrat Sod” [ = Paris®’] 
in ed. N.T. contra ed. Schmidtke) 
L 


“Vil. 24. 


33. 


35, 


CODFX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


exBadrgcTas «NID minn*™ 
yeoper W (ef. « et boh) 
m\Oev M 28 273 2°° 604 Eust® Orig 
e&nrGev LA (econ ev 245) 
amn)Oev Plur et DW (abiit Latt) 
mpoodaBopevos W 
atroraBonevos NBD plur minn plur et 2° Paris®” 892* 
emthaBopevos E*T' 118-131-209 157 213 604 892** al” et Hust*? 
Aa Bopevos A 63** Sod} 
adprehendens a J 6 vg, sed suscipiens 6 d 7 7, accipiens ¢ q, 
adcipiens f,, adsumens f 
In these cases where the Latins vary so much,f there has 
been already Greek reaction on them. We must assume 
suscipiens of b dir or acciptens of ¢ ff, g to be the more basic. 
Probably ¢ (= e &? which are wanting) = W*. 
nvovyncav BA1~209 [non 118] 892 W-H Sod txt, nvvynoay ND 
nvotyOnoay Li Sod** | Soa 
Sinvovynoay 124 2°¢ 604 Sunvuyncav W 
SenvoryOnoav AN rell et 2 minn pl et 28 Paris 
(The latin remains unchanged: apertae sunt, and none 
apparently adapertae sunt.) 


36 init. Here also praeceptt of Jatt is uniform and the Greeks (including 


W) agree on Svectetkaro. Only A and Paris” vary with 
everethato [A repeats at viii. 15 but not Paris®’]. 


tbid. Neyoow NBLWA et W Sod 28 33 892 2°* Paris” W-H Sod™* 


exwcw D rell et 2D minn pl 


tbid. Although D d 8 ¢ ff, 7 omit ocov Se avtous SseoreAreTo, it is 


noteworthy that W (which retains with the other Greeks 
and a f g2 1 gq vg) writes oow... = quanto of f g2 (quando) 
vg so that even here W* sympathises with Latin. 


ibid. wepiscotepws ND W* 61 604 Sod™#?5 3 


viil. 


37. 


5. 


TepiaooTepov B rell et W 


urepextreptcows DU fam 1 435 604 

ee Me umepreptacov Sod! amplius Jat¢ 
TT 

umeprrepicams = NB et 3D minn pl vid 

npora NBLA 892 Paris” W-H 

NpoTnoev WwW 

ernpaTncey M Sod?¥# 

ernpwTa D rell et 2® Sod 


interrogavit it omn (praeter a interrogabat) 


6. mapayyearee NBD*L 892 1 vgPPIOkY WH Sod. vel rapnyyere 


rell et latt®! praecepit (rapayyerkas Sod? QP), 





+ See the other Lists where they do not vary among themselves, 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 147 


Mark 
: evrevake Origen (=latt praecepit, vi. 27 39) 


Vili. 7. mapeOnxev N* tantum et Tisch** 
exerevoey trapateevat D (jussit latt sah aeth ?) 
evrev TapaTiOevat BLA®?* 179 372 892 Sod? 141 144 7-H 
Sod. (eewev tapateOnvat A c* } (®)) cf latt apponi 
evrev wapadewar GM*NUVXII2 et W 2? al. of syr copt 
evrev Tapadnvace EFHKSW'T 28 al. mult 
evrrev Tapadere C 33 (Paris*’) 
Cf verss. Male Tisch de d “ dixit pro jussit.” Habet d: “et gratias 
agens dixit (ob D® xa evyapictncas pro Kau evdoynoas) et ipsos jussit 


adponi.”’ 
Cf compositionem et contextum in docum. diversis. 
viii. 12. Syres onperov NBCDLA Sod fam 1 28 33 2°* 604 892 


Paris” W-H Sod. 
quaerit signum a bed (quaeret) ffi 16 vg" copt aeth syr 
onetov emritnres AN rell et WE® Orig 
signum quaerit Sn2dr vgs goth arm 

N.B.—Here, with differing order, the simple quaerit is constant. 
among Latins. This kind of thing is quite different from what occurs. 
in the next verse vili. 138 where N> substitute caradiurev for ages. 
This is simply ez Matthew. 

viii. 15. opare Brerere NB most and WE (P:opate xat Prerere) 
but D Sod™ 23 fam 1 2 2° omit opare, and A 604 omit Arerreve. 
The Latins (all except cf 921 gat aur vg) and syr sin only use one 
expression, but this varies: a k vg" syr sin using cavete 
while: bd ff, i q 7 use videte 
tcavete 
videte 

In view of all that has passed before it is probable that either cavete 
or videte is basic. Cavete may have grown out of videte, and opate 
Brerrere out of cavete. 

viii. 17. mem. exere Tyv xapdiay ypov = Pluret Wf gab ug (habetis) 


Over opare in A stands 


exovtes 28 
Ten. EOTLY N KapdLa UVULwY D* aq syr 
TET. ULV EOTLY N KApOLA Sod? 2° 
TET. ELEL AL KAPOLAL UpLCOV bed fot (hiat k) 


[Male Sod. de W; non accurate de latt. et d]. 
Sah: your heart (is) hard. Boh: Is your heart hardened. 
23. This whole verse shows signs of peculiar handling. D starts off 
with AaBouevos thy yeipa for emrAaBopevos THs xELpos, aS to 
which, curiously enough, all other Greeks are agreed among 
themselves for adpraehendt manum of d (adprachensa manu 
of ack 8, adprehendit manum of bi q 7, adprehendens manum 








t “wapareOnvur is the reading commended by the usage of the language.” 
Buttmann, Blass, 
LQ 


148 


Mark 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


of f #2 9121 vg). For tov rugdrov W 1 28 2°° 604 substitute 
avrov against Latin, 1 131 229 238 Sod'*4 5!" "4 conflate avrov 
Tou tuprov, as diatess. 

For e&veyxey NBCLAA) 33 Paris” Sod 40° e¢ tat, the 
rest and W have e&yyayer. The Latins vary between duzxit 
(6 ¢ fa gat r gat), eduatt d f L8 vg), produit (a k), etcit (g). 
Then W alone has evrrveas for rrvoas (exspuens Jatt) and adds 
xat before eriOers with G 113 28 273 Sod™ and a bc d against 
D*. Paris omits es before oupata. For avtw a few have avrov 
but W er avrw. For interrogabat of d and Latins, ernpwra 
most, but npwra W 251* Sod, emnpwrncev NX, D* has 
emepwra. For indirect question et rs Brees of N and most Greeks, 
all Latins, and syr goth arm, BCD"A Sod 372 2°¢ Paris 
copt aeth substitute direct oration es ts BAeres, and W hss 
e. Brerre eliding 71, while & alone puts aliquit after videret. 
(Brerrew 13 [non fam] perhaps a good way out of the difficulty.) 

Surely this must mean retranslation. 


vill. 25 init. extra wadw Greeks, but xav radu D and et iterwm by b 


ibid, 


ibid. 


26. 
27. 
28. 


ibid. 


29. 


a fatkar (c “et rursus ”’) syr sin. 
Cf further remarks as to this under caption “Itala as a 
unit.” 
kar SuePrepev NBC*LWA*" fam 1 28 Sod’? 
kat eveBreYrev CC? boh (of sah aeth aliter) et vidit k (syr sin ?) 
Kat npEaro avaBreyrae Dbecdgzfiilrs vg pers 
Kau eroincev avtov avaBdewar ANX unc" et 2@ al. af q. 
Om syr pesh. 


kat eTrounoev avtov avaBrevrar Kat S16, ev fam 13 [non 124] 

wore avaBrewar... D it vg 

Kat & ev N Sod 43 348 9P¢ sah 8, nat eBrerrev 244 syr 

Kat eveSNetrey BL 28 18-69 273 v* W-H Sod, nas 
, avePrerrev A® 346 

Kae ave ev sic W*, nas aveBrewev FM 124 157 al. 

kau eveBreYrev A unc" al. pl. (Om. Paris®), 

Compare the different recensions here in Tisch. 

els Kalcaplay Dabdfrigr 

els TAS Kwpas Karcapias NB rell et WE. cf kl 8 vg 

evray NBCLA Paria” (892) & 5 copt syr aeth [non Sod***} 


amexpiOycav D unc et WE® minn it omn (praeter k 8) vg goth 
(arm ut Luc ot 8 aroxp. evra) 


OTe els TwY pod. NBCL 892 Paris” copt (syr) W-H Sod txt 


[es Twr mrpod. 2° test. Muralt Tisch, non Belsh Cronin] 
eva, Twy mpod. A unc et WE® Sod minn et k & 
ws eva Toy Tpop. D Sod’ 42 ¢¢ vg ( praeter k) 


emnpwra avtovs NBCDLA 58 892 2°* Sod? et Sod a ff, g 
(c) & copt 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 149 
Mark 


Reyes avTots A une rell et WXD Sod bilrvg (f k) 
goth arm aeth syr (edeyev Sod'***) 
vill. 80. exrwouw CDG Sod" 
Neyo NB rell et W (Aeyouow) TD minn 
33. meTpw NBDL 21 hi soli et W-H Sod tat (cf copt lat) 
TW TETPW A une rell et W2® minn et Paris” 


34. ats NBC*DLA et W fam 1 fam 13 28 115 183 2°° 604 
892 Paris” Laura’? Sod? 1089 1341 fm $8 Hyst 31 48 
it vg arm Orig Orig’ Synops (Ath) W-H Sod. 

oaTls A unc rell? et SB Sod minn rell™ copt syr 


ibid. axorovOetv C*DX unc? et WP 1 28 al it! vg 
goth aeth (adhaerere acth'™) sah et Sod tat 
edbevy NABC°’KLIAIISS al. c kl gat boh syr 


arm Orig* Synops et W-H 
erOew Kat axorovtiyv AS 
ix. 2. avayee DW* 2°, d ff, iq k**? I et & (super A® avadepe) = 
ducit. Rellabcfgn vg duxit, k* insefuit. 
avapepet NB rell omn gr et WEP Sod” 
3. Tes D det bi (avOpwrrot syr pesh pers) 
yvapevs NB rell gr et WEP minn (et 2” rell) copt aeth latt rell 
Om. claus. X an syr sin 


[Hoc loco incipit V] 


6. amroxpi6n BC*LA"Y 1 28 33 2°¢ [Male Sod de c™ et 3°] 604 
892 Paris*’ Sod'4> ®™8 & boh W-H Sod tat (atrexgi0y © Orig”) 
Aarne C3U*® al. pauc | ac ff2 » g loqueretur, b filr 
rAarAnoee =6-CTY veld. pol et & ro vg Tert aeth diceret 
Aaree W. crare Sod. Cf syr sah 

ibid. expoBot yap eyevovTo NBCDLAW Sod° 33 892 2?* Paris 
Sod™*3, cf latt pl sah W-H Sod tat 
noav yap exhoBou AN rell et W2® of fl g vg boh 
(The point is not the order as much as noav and eyevovto. Cf. 
the Latin expressions. ex. yap noav 4 Sod*1*5",) 

7. eyevero porn NBCLAY 892 Paris” boh syr pesh et § W-H 

nrOev povn D rell et latt omn (non 8) goth sah syr sin Sod 
[Om yrOev vel eyevero W 1. 7 Sod k (c) ex Matt ?] 
+8. e€arwa = NB plur et WE® minn pl 
evfews DW! Sod 28 66™ 69 2°¢ Sod!? 443 (statim a d gis 
tlnr vg) (c ff repente, f confestim, % subito, g continuo) 
Om 6 cum diatess ; of Luc ix. 36 





t Note Marsh’s Michaelis vol. i. pt. 1. p. 144 as to the ‘‘ Alexandrian idiom in the 
N.T.” where he says: efamwa which is used in the Gospel of S. Mark and in the Septua- 
gint (Lev. Numb. Josh. Isai. Psa. 2 Chron.) and of which Thomas Magister says that it 
is absolutely no Greek word and perfectly spurious, has been found by Kypke in 
Jamblichus (Protrept xx. 125). Not mentioned in Liddell and Scott. 





150 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


ibid, adda ACLXPAII unc® ef WB Sod minn® arm Sod** 
€l pn NBDN et W'2W1 33 61 892 Evst 48 49 et Pario™ 
Sod'** W-H txt (wca sah, eRHA boh) 
arr 7 27 Sod*! 12° Tauras' (teste Soden non Lake). 
Latt omn nisi goth alja of syr we An 
This is one of the most peculiar places on record. All the Latins 
use nist. In Matt xvii. 8 the Greeks use « «yn. (In Luke it is different : 
cat ev Te yeverOar Thy pwvny evpeby Inaovs poves.) 
If « yy in Greek be original and not drawn from Matthew, or 
translated from the Latin nist, why should all the other Greeks use adda 
here, which corresponds curiously enough almost literatim to the gothic 





alja (German als) and to the syriac for nisi. In St. Matthew where -_ 


the Greek is es wy the Latins have again naturally nist. But according 
to all rules of criticism, as es «ny is the Matthaean Greek expression, adAa 
in St. Mark (being different) should be looked upon with favour (since 
it could not be drawn from there) especially as W supports the other 
seventeen uncials which use it and thus Soden acts here instinctively. 
Very few minuscules support the ec. uy of NBDNW*S¥ in Mark. 

Sah uses errant: in Matt (against fica in Mark) but bof uses the 
same eur in Matt as in Mark; the syriacs use the same word it in Matt 
and Mark (in Matthew goth is wanting). 

Of course Hort forcest « my into his text on the an of 
NBNW?+D (to which add since his day =W Paris®) without a thought 
of anything except that such a combination must be paramount. But it 
is nothing of the sort. The syriac did not influence an adda in Matthew, 
so why should it have any influence on ACL efc in Mark? That can be 
ruled out. We are left to face either a translation by two Greek groups 
of an original Latin nisi, or an original adda in St. Mark’s Greek. We 
toust look into this matter more carefully. Because the Greek of D 
happens to coincide with that of NB here it need not worry us. On the 
contrary, D would most probably thus translate the nisi of d. Why does 
C desert the NB combination here? Why does L desert it? Why does 
W desert it? Why does Sod desert it? And why ®? Here L is 
the most important witness of all against eo yy. 

Nowhere else in St. Mark is adda translated nist in Latin. But 
there would certainly be an excuse here in ix. 8 for nisi to be rendered 
back into Greek by adda. The proper place then for this small matter 
is here under the caption of ‘‘ Two or more Greek Recensions,” and once 
for all it shows very clearly how the authorities are divided. That 
YW joins NB is perfectly natural. We have to explain the defection of 
CL from the group and their adherence with W® Sod™ to the other 
preponderating side. 

As to an argument for retranslation from Latin, a lene at the other 


t No other expression will adequately express the matter. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 151 


subjects for discussion submitted just above in verses 6, 7, 8 seems very 
pertinent. 

Further as to accommodation to Matthew, note that BD [WY Sod sed 
malel] 33 i** have ex tou opovs in the next verse (as Matt.) for azo tov 
opous of the rest. 

Compare, for another case of adda and st (or quodsi as a has it) 
Mark xi. 832. Observe here at ix. 8 that both efamiva/evOews and addra/et 
#” occur in this one verse. 

Mark ix. 8. wepiBremopevor W**" e¢ latt 
nrepiBrerapevot Rell 

I only mention this to show that W prefers the present tense as 
Egypt elsewhere favours the historic present and imperfect, And because 
W here resumes its Latin sympathies, as in verse 11 W writes 7¢ ovy (for 
ott prim) apparently alone of Greeks. (re ore Sod'* (ef. 2°* claus. seq.) ). 
Mark 

ix. 14 (pr. loco) pos avrous D tt" (et & aput eos, g cum illis) (sy7) 

qrepe avTOUS Rell gr, et soli f lg vg inter latt circa eos 
ibid. (sec loco) wpos avrovs NBCGILWA® (NG ecavtous) Sod 
fam 1 28 33? 115 124 604 892 k Om. Sod” 


pos avTov WV Sod** (avrov Sod) 
avTous D rell cf T® minn™  latt cum eis 
et 8 [contra A®] syr copt (avrovs 179 Paris? Sod'?**) 

16. pos eavtous NAGMT e¢ W 33 157 al. e¢ 892 Paris” 

Tpos avrous BCULNX rell et [Pv 

7 pos aAANAOUS Sod? min paue et 2° 

Tap eavTols 179 

PET avTO@D Sod 

evvew Dit" og (8 inter vel ad vos supra A®™ mpos avrous) 

(Om k) 


These three examples so close ave instructive. I have left out 
another in verse 13. 
1S. ove ndurnOycay W 115 604 
ouK iryuoay Rell et TV 
This nSvv7Oncav must come from retranslation, because W [negl..Sod], 
with only D Sod a b dr 2!*, adds in St. Mark’s truly pleonastic manner 
exBarew avto with sah arm (aeth + curare eum). 
[Observe 604 at iv. 41 edadouy pro ereyov, v. 1 Aupyns pro baracors, 
vy. 24 emopevero pro amnne, ix. 10 ernpnoav pro exparncay}. 
Besides, in W it is followed immediately by the Latin witsoductian 
of the next verse (19) «as for 6 de. 


aie ix, 20. erapatey DF 
eorapatey AINXTII unc? et WE®, V (sed VW evevcoyNnec- 
’ [APAEEN) minn 
cuverapakev NBCLA 33 372 892 Paris” (/att conturbavit et d) 


152 


Mark 


ix. 21. 


abid. 


27. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


eas == B®! (ews ov Sod™™) 
ws N*AC3DERTT unc? et @ al. pl Goth “ ei”) W-H 
eGov C*LA et NWWI? Sod” 28 33 892 2° 
Tee alg 
ko 61 pigied Bhim sad: Scere of latt copt syr 
apov N2 fam 13 [non 69] 40 Sod's*48862 
ex waibdos D Sod" (ex wedos) 2°° Chr 
ex waibobev IN et W23 fam 1 infanti b infanti 
ex maidiobey NBCGLA et OY 93 | °* MMfantia a, ab infantia 
899 of al! rell et d 
aratdobev EB? 2 238 e*' 
madiobev ATI unc® al. pl 
wabsubev X 
@ pueritia sua syr aeth copt 
THS YElpos auTOU NBDLAY Sod fam 1 fam 18 [non 124) 
28 53 115 892 2° y*" latt copt W-H Sod txt 


THS XELpos WwW 
" autov rns yelpos Rell et SP min” et 604 Paris 
auTov Ts XElpos avTOU C* syr 


28. 


ebid. 


ibid. 


eurehMovros avtov NBCDLA et WY Sod 

fam 1 fam 13 28 604 892 LauraA 1% ee 
(edBovros avtou 2”* non al. Errat Sod) Essoume aerotee 
eedovra avroyv «Rell et ® minn™ et Bet tart 

Paris” (~—avrov 273) 
(eAOovra avrov N= al. pauc et i male Sod de™ % &t 350. jr) 
bate ADKITI et ® ale+ syr pesh latt (cur b, quare 
d rell) 

ote State U 181 238 al+ copt syr sin (cf Euthy ym) 
TU OTe alig pauc 


ort NBCLNXTA une! et W2¥ Sod™ gr longe pl 
(ef ix. 11) 
.wepay DGAC? et W Sod min® et Paris” it og syr goth arm 
Tou Trepay x 
Kat Tepay NBC*LY 892 sah boh et W-H tat 
8ca tov trepay ‘AN unc” et ® aeth 


xat Sia tov wepay = LuauraA™ Ita Sod'** [nat] [Sea rv] rrepav. 
The rest of the verse varies a great deal also. See Tisch and 
observe W ourmopevetar oxdos Tpos avrov xat ws wwe mad 
edacKev avtous. 


. eTetXaTo D 28 [non W non Sod vid] (mandavit *) 


everethato = NB rell et WZ®¥ minn™ (praecepit rell latt) 


. Kak €ay auTy atron. Tov avdpa autns NB(C)L(A) 892 (Paris*) 


boh aeth (sah) 


kat cay yury amon. Tov avdpa autns AN unc" et Z® (a) () f 


(k) l vg syr goth 





GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. ~ 158 
Mark 
Kat eav youn eeAOn atro Tov avdpos cae §=D fam 13 28 2 604 
: ' (a) b (c) d fi g2 (A) 9 
(dliter W3 1 syr sin; aliter V; ef. Sod’) 
x. 16. zpoonarecapevos Dedffiqrsyr sin (b?2)T 
EVAYKAALTALEVOS NB rell et WE®V minn rell latt sah boh 


goth (aeth syr pesh a) 
(aykadecapevos 238) 


As Buchanan throws out our star witness 6, possibly 

mpoaxarecapevos crept in from Luke, but it is uncertain. 

ibid, Kxatevdoyer NBCA 179 892 Sod98146 of tet, xarqudoyer 

LY yr Pet Paris”? Sod, xarnhoye N (Cronin) 
evdoryet ADEHK*MSUVXII et W  qudoyes TL 28 al. 
evroynoey FGE? al. 
(See under ‘‘ Improvement” in the Mark section) 
20. epurata AD 28 892 Clem Orig 

evroinga fam 1 2° Sod'55" syr sin (of Ev. sec. Hebr. in 


Matt. apud Orig") 
egvdatauny NB rell omn vid et WE®YV Sod 


22. wodda ypynpata D 
multas pecunias d 
magnam pecuniam a 
Xpnpara TONG 116 
xpyuata mohha Kat arypous Clem 
multas pecunias et agros b 
multae divitias et agros k 
multas possetsionis et pecunias ff 
KTnpaTa Toa NB rell et WE®V Sod 
multas possessiones c sah (boh) 
divitias multas f4 
possessiones multas 18 p 
t 35. aetno@pev B unc pl et SPV 
aiTnoopev NA 124 [saltu N* ex hom om verba_ab 
wafiva 35/37] 
EpwTng wpev D Sod™ (test. Beerm. & G)1 [non fam] 2°° 
aitnowpeba Ww Latt omn petierimus : 
36. re Oedere Toijoar pe vpetv ANXTTI unc? ef 2H minn et 


Laura4™ et Soden txt 





+ Here Buchanan hopelessly contradicts Bianchini, for the latter (as Tisch) has 
convitans for b, but Buchanan has amplerus without stating whether convitans is an 
emendation in b or an invention of the previous editor. Amplexus throws b to the other 
side of the testimony. The others on the side of D use convocans, On the other side 
l vg = complexans, k complexus, vg complectens and r, complectans (a Et in sinu suo 
ben. illos as ayr). An original convectaNs might have caused trouble. 

In Mark ix. 86 evayxodtcapevos has already been used (the only other occasion in N.T.) 
where D has avaxAtoapevos and @ conplexus as b c ff, k lq and the rest there. 

+ Consider also +ae NB al., —wa by D* 2 (6) kr, and the varieties o av D, om av C, 
ocav B rell. 











154 


x. 48. 


46. 


49. 


iid. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


te OedeTe pe Toneat vyLv LN® 4 992 Paris’ e¢ Wer men 
So's 1354 

og TWOLNo aL Up W®*A 273 282 348 al?, quid vultis 
faciam vobis q 

oy) PE TOLNTw ,, BN? et ¥ Tisch™* W-H™ 

» 9 «ToNTM C Sod fam 113 (non 124] 2P° 

‘al. pauc. et W-H txt - 
” ” TOLNTOpAL ,, ee 
1») «WH TOUT ,, 106 251 Sod}222 1933 557 quid 


vultis ut faciam vobis cf ff, 18 og 
tramnow uuew (— Tt Oerere) D, @ praestabo vobis (quid praes- 
j tabo vobis r ?) 
quid faciam vobis (—@edere). a bi Om. vers. =k 
weyas yever Oat ev vu NBC*LAYV min pauc W-H Sod tat 
& (major fieri in vobis) f ff q (major esse in vobis) 
yeverBar peyas ev yuty = AXTIT unc? ef 2 (evar Sod’) 
.(copt goth) 
peyas ev upey etvat Dd (major inter vos esse) 
peyas ev vyuv yevesOae = Sod" vid 
ev upiy peyas yeverOac = “W 2° Sod**® (in vobis major esse @ b) 
in vobis primus esse r (cf. Sod” vv. 43/44 invert.) 
in vobis esse major ¢ 
ev vply eval peyas Sod" ver. 44 syr arm (aeth) 


_in vobis efse magnus k 


in vobis voluerit major esse i 
(Thus Ww ar Sod 58 glone give Latin order of abr) (Cf 
vers 44) 
apocatoy <A plur et WX 
cnarrov D Sod 2 Orig (of Lue) tach ah goth metneah 
tpocaitns BLAY 892 k boh arm (nat mpocaitns &) Om. C* 
Paris” 
evrev wrngate avtov NBCLAWI minn” 892 et 
' . Paris” i 8 et boh W-H Sod txt 
etrev avtov daornOnvat D plur et W® minn d syr Orig 


eimev avtw pornOnvat 179 273 604 al? 

evrev pavnOnvas avtov XL al.? Sod't situa ooeh 

exeXeucey hovnOnrar avroy Evst 48 a arm aeth 

exedeurey autos dwrvnOnvas avrov sah 

exedevoev autov povnOnvat cTbef fage2tlg (mut r) 

Ka Pwvove roy TupAoy Aeyorres auTw Plur et W (-avro 
of. ¢ k) LBV f 18 vg et syr pesh sah boh aeth 

et clamaverunt dicentes k (-avrw ut W* et c infra) 

ot 8 Neyourw Tw TUdAwW Dei 

ot Se extray (evry?) Te tubo 2a dq (6 fa breviter 


qui dicunt caeco) 








Mark 


fT xi. 


tw 


t 4. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 155 


o Se epwryce tov Tuprov Kat Neyouow avtw —. sy Sin 
(Hesitabant librarit 28 et Paris*) 
et abierunt vocare illum dicentes ¢c 


50. avactas ACM XII une! ef WE® minn?! syr pesh arm 


aeth (init vers) sah 3/5 
avarndnoas §=NBDLM™A et V Sod? 892 2°° Paris” Laura’ 
Evst 34 48 2°" boh goth syr sin (init vers) Orig (avarnbyoas 
et eodem loco mozx avernince Kat avertn) 
exrndnoas —s cat**" (eLadAopevos Veles) 
Omn ex latt™ exiliens ??? (exurgens 72 [sed exiuit k, exiliit q, 
(Om T' Sod'**) cucurrit sak 2/5] 


51. re OeXers (eva) romow con ADXT™% unc? Wii abcdf fr 


boh (sah) goth aeth syr | 
tt cot Ochets rotnow =NBCKLAII*Y Sod min*" e¢ 892 1 8 vg™ 
quid vis tibi faciam g2hlkq p vgg™ 
—cot Orig (ce pro cot 348) 


. Kexadixev ADXTT une® et 2 al, pl, Sod et: 


emuxexaberKev Ws(ef sah 2, 2L00C oixwe) 

exabtoev NBCLAY Sod 4, 7, 2°° 604 892 Paris*’ Sod™! 
Evst 36 W-H* Orig'* (anbobus locis) 

(sedit latt omn, sed cf copt de insedit ut W*) 

xacarnrdov cat NBLAYV 892 (¢ 8) boh syr sin Orig 1/2 


W-H Sod 
xat arrerOovres TD) Sod? 2° 604 laté?! (— «az a) syr*™ Orig 1/2 
amnrOov Se Kav A plur et WE® minn™ et Paris” 
amndOov Se (—Kxat)  Sod™"' sah ; 
amndOov ovy Kat fam 1 13 28 al. 


(the same applies to mwAov and tov wwdov, Ouvpay and Thy 
Oupay here) 


. evTrev NBCLA ect WY fam 1 28 115 124 892 Sod'*" k 
sah boh arm aeth Orig W-H Sod txt 
elpnKev Paris® 
elpnKet D* : 
dixerat be fai & (super evrev A®) syr sin 


evetethavo A plur X® Sod** goth (praeceperat d a f l'vg) syrreh 
(Paris eypnxev and D ecpyxes are very suggestive) 


. kat pepovow BLA et ¥ ef 8° 892 LauraA™ Orig W-H Sod txt 


kat ayovow  &*C et W Sod™ fam 1 13 28 Sod™™ 
xarnyayov «6s D vellet SD ce dflg & vg copt syr goth aeth 
minn” et Paris” 


ducere (—xaz) a b ff, ¢ [Silet Sod de his} 





+ In xi. 1/12 a comparison with Origen shows that what he was copying out at one 
time absolutely disagrees with what he says about Mark's text at another. So that two 
recensions of this existed distinctly in his day, which he omitted to observe. I have not 
reproduced here all the points involved. 








156 


Mark 


abid. 


xi. 11. 
13. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


emPBarr\ovcww NBCDLA®™ et WY Sod fam 1 2" (Cronin) 
(604) 892 Paris” d d ff, il vg, rs (ponunt) Orig W-H Sod 

ereBarov A rell et UP (a)c f 92k g boh™ (sah) syr aeth goth 

Vide sub ‘‘ 8B divide” in Part IT. 

ade eav tt ext D videre si quid esset bcd f2g.ikr 


T ws evpyoer Tt Sod 2° 604 Orig™ 382 = quasi inventurus 


ibid. 


ibid. 


15. 


aliquid @ g (quasi aliq. inventarus /) 
el apa tievpnoee NABCKLNUAMN"*. cf WEY al. 1 § ug 
W-H Sod 
et apa evpnoes Tt? EGHMSVXITI? al. pl sah bok (syr) goth 
videre si fuisset quem inveniret fructus acth 


videre si quid forte inveniret aur gat vg?!® eta 

pendev eupwy DF ar = (ag) Orig ~—s (ord lat) 

ovdev eupev NB rell et WE®YV Sod minn 

oudev ovy evpev L (ef syr sin) 

eupev ovdev copt 

0 yap Katpos ove nv cuxov NBC* L A et W 892 (copt) syr 
W-H Sod 


ov yap ny (0) Katpos (rwv) cvxavy =A rell et WED minn latt 
arm aeth goth Orig 


(Om vid Paris’) 

npxovTa 

venerunt _ acf ff, syr pesh goth boh 

intraverunt d= (sah 3/6) 

ecredOwy D™ of syr sin 

epxeTar 604 bir (sah 3/6) 

epxovTat NB plur ef WE®Y Sod minn g kl q vg 
Om claus 28 


(Postea xat ore nv D d pro nat ecedOwr) 


21 fin. eEnpavdy DULNA et TV Sod* 1 33 2° 604 Paris” al Orig 


23. 


ibid. 


eEnpatas X 157 al” et Sod*-* 
e€npavrat NB rell ef W® minn™ 
apOnvas...8rOnvac W fam 1 28 124 [non fam] Sod" latt 
apOnre. . .BrnOyTe Rell Gr. 

Tischendorf here suppresses the Latin witness, rather 
spoiling the inference. 
Aare: NBLNA et ZV Sod™*""-5 e¢ txé. 33 892 2” Paris” Lust 48ak 
Reyer A rell et W® q (ere c*") 
a) 238 al. paue ( f i vg) 
ro pedrov... Dbcd frit 

This is a good place to consider once more the retranslation 
from Greek of a (loquitur) k (locutus fuerit) as against the 
other independent method of the Latins. t 





t Soden quotes os evpyowy without 7, but this must be a mistake. 
¢ Consider shortly afterwards at xii. 14 capttularium of k and emxaupadaoy of D* 


Sod” 2° Lauraé (but d tributum). 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK, 157 
Mark 
xi. 24, edaBere NBCLA* et WY 892 W-H et Sod txt 
AapBavere A unc” et E@ al. fere omn et Paris” 
Laura! syr goth arm } of Orig. 
AnervecBe D Sod fam 1 2" 604 latt aeth Cypr 
Variant sah boh codd inter se 
81. wpocedoyifovro Nec ct 
dvehoyelovto BCD*GKLMATI ef WY Sod ail. et 892 
Lauras™ W-H"™ (Sceroyitov D?) 
edoyilovTo AEFHNSUVXTI et 2@ al. et Paris” Sod™ 
(Latt omn cogitabant praeter ¢ cogitare coeperunt) t 
32. ara NABCLA®S 33 al. k* vg™ (aAN XTIT une® et ® 
(W) al. pl) goth “ak,” 
quodsi a 
eav D 604 al dg. q 8 ug “si” 
t eav Se are Sod’ ¢ f ff, “si autem” 
addy cav = W Sod min" trt vec k? “sed si” (boh) (sah) 


Kat cay Sod! ¢ x syr aeth 
si vero b 
(Cf Mare ix. 8) 
thid. poBovpev D 


poBovpeda D?NW= fam 18 28 106 253 2° 604 c*T oft 
Sod ea 42”! et § contra A* vg 1/2 sah 4/6 boh arm aeth 
epoBovrto NB rell et B minn”™ h k (metuebant) J vg 1/2 
pofov...(spatium) WV 
(timor est a populo timor —syr) 
<bid. tov XNaov D plur et WY minn fere omn et sah (asTiAaoc) 
syr (Om. Sod), 
tov oydkov ==9NBCN et [@ 33 106 et Paris” Sod*"4 Sod et boh 
SANILLHGS = (Tov oyAor in Matt xxi. 26, o Nas amas 


Lue xx. 6) 
plebem det bigr populum ac f ff, g2 kis 
| ibid. necro» D, W Sod? (n8icar), 2 a bed f f,ik g (mut r) 


sciebant 
oduce 604 i 


etyooay $828 (ef etdocav D in ix. 9) 





+ I6 is interesting to notice that while the Latins are constant here and the Greeks 
vary in threefold fashion, yet that immediately following, for the pos eavrovs (constant 
among Greeks except in 33 and Paris” Sod" = ev eavrois, W mrpos avrovs, 115 mpos adAnAovs) 
the Latins vary considerably, thus: inter semetipsos d, inter se a q vg®, intra se J, secum 
92? Lrug, aput se k, ad invicem ff,, secum ad invicem i, adversum se b; and omit ¢ with 
syr sin, Such small variations may well be “ provincial” and not all from varying 
translations of the Greek, while cogitabant with all may be a foundation, for the Latins 
could well use other words. Cf Mark ix. 83 and other places, 

$ Neglexit Tisch 2° cum c f ff. 

| The student may look for this on p. 79 of Mr. Sanders’ notes, but his limitations 
(see p. 74) unfortunately excluded it. 








158 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


exovow = ef Matt xxi. 26 (exovtes Sod'**) 
evyov NB reli et ® minn™ et Hditt. 

(nv copt, non habent boh sah exw) of Luc xx. 6 ear, 

The fact that W goes with D, and that 28 gives the form 

‘ evxyocay (a favourite form with D, see edocav ix. 9) may show 

some ambiguity in ancient Greek copies, but the Latins here 
give no uncertain sound and 604 confirms sciebant by using 
odeact. The matter, if a Greek one, seems to hinge on an 
original «s3ocav, but this may not precede the Latins, but 
follow them, and have been changed subsequently. This 
place deserves earnest study, for the parallels are slightly 
different. % is the only Greek to accommodate to Matthew . 
and none accommodate to Luke (excepting coptic which 
cannot help it). 

In Matt. xxi. 26 = ravtes yap ws mpopytny eyovow tov lwavrqv 

In Luke xx. 6 = rereupevos yap eotiv lwavynu mpadytyy eas 

In St. Matthew the Latins a ¢f ff, 9, h q vg have evyov. 

In St. Luke D® has qreresopevos and a@ = “sciunt,” but d = seit, and 
the rest certi sunt, while ff, = certum est. There is a very intricate inter- 
relation in the passages. 

But while an original eocav in Mark xi, 32 might have grown out 
of a Latin sciebant, sciebant could hardly grow out of edecuv or we should 
have had traces. of videbant among the Latins.t See remarks .on 
Clement’s text as to possible age of the basic Latin underlying the Greek 
. and occasional unusual retranslation in W as at Mark xi. 25 avy pro adn 
for dimittat. 

Mark 
xii, 1, apredwva avép. epurevoery NBCA ef PY 83 262 Lauras 
W-H Sod 
o 1» €rounoey L 892 
ap7edwva edutevoey avOpwros DA unc? minn et latt goth 
avOparros tts eputevoey ater. W Sod fam 13 2° Sod ¢ 
: syr pesh aeth Orig 


avOpwrros (— 71) ,, i N& 433 Paris” syr sin sah 
nu avOpurros eputeveev aur. boh : 

(plantavit acd figr pastenavit b ff, l novellavit i) 
2. rAaBn B plur et W2OYV (AaBor N Sod? ™) g, 1 vg sah 

acciperet syr pesh boh 

Swoovew Die 

Treprpoveww syr sin 

afferrent aeth=* 





t Compare xii. 15 edwe all Greeks but ND, while N ov, D edav, and ¢ d ff, videns, 
big? cum vidisset. Compare xii. 24 ywooxovres for adores by D and Origen only. 
Cf also xii, 28. 


Mark || 


xii, 5. 


14. 


17. 


19. 


20. 


24. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 159 


ovs pev . . ous de NBLA et Y Sod 133 2° 604 892 al? 
et Paris” W-H Sod txt 

ous wev . . Tous be ® (sous pev..ovs de Sod'"?) 

Tous pev . . Tous Se ACN(X)ITI unc? et 

tous de . . Tous d¢ Ww 


ovs pev . . addous be = CD laté 
eMorres Reyouoty avtw NB plur et LPV g21 8 vg boh W-H txt 
(sah goth aeth) 
venientes interrogabant illum a (syr pesh) 
venientes interrogabant eum subdole = (q) r 
eOovtes npEavto evepwrav avtov ev Koyw Sod'*™ vid 
edOovtes npEarto epwray avtoyv ev Bokw W 251 (syr sin — eA@ovres) 
edOorvtes npEavto epwrav avtov ev dor AeyovTes G fam 113 28 
Sod et txt! 
ehOovres exnpwtncav avtov ev dodw reyouTes 604 
EXOovtes exnpwtwv autov ev Sodw AeyovTes  — Sod®° 9P¢ Soda et 
b arm 
eTnpwTav avTov ot hapisacor (—edO., —ev Sod. rev.) Dd 
(phar. eum) 
interrogabant eum farissaei dicentes k 
venientes pharisaci interrogabant eum dicentes ¢(= etiam c®®) 
» subdole fi 
ceeBea pata’ NBY W-H é Sod txt 6b (mirabantur + vehementer) 
admirabantur ¢ ff, 
eBavpatoy DLA Sod 892 2° LauraA Sod! 443, mirabantur 
adilgr 68 boh (D' ebavpafovro, D? eavpator) 
cOavpacav ACNXTII unc® et WE®, k (admirati sunt) sah 
(See under “‘ Improvement ”’) 
exn DW it syr sin, oxn Sod*®F 4 1331, ever 28, evar 604. 
xatadirn B plur et SOV (catareupn® Sod, catareryer C433) 
amwoOvncxwv NB rell ef LPV minn™ 
ameOavey cat DW Sod 1 28 604 (91 92 2°) Sod!" tt vg syr copt 
wae avreOave Kat aTroOvnoKxwv Laura ™™ 
This looks hke a very square basic division. Compare the 
differences in the next two verses. ‘ 
Bn ryELvacKorTEs D® Orig 
pn adores NB rell ef WEPV minn™ ™ incl 28 (sSeres) are 604 


I place this here because of Origen’s unique adhesion to D™. He 
could not have got it from the Greek of Matthew because etdotes is there 
used. We may well enquire how it is that W is absent from this dual 
combination, and where are 28 2" 604 and Sod®°? All absent. No 
minuscule support. As to the Latins, while a k 1 g, 8 vg use non scientes, 
bed 1% 7r have non intelligentes (nescientes 7, vg™°", ignorantes q). 

D d only add odare at the end of the verse, differentiating between 
intellegentes scripturas and virtutem di scitis. 


160 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


In this connection we must refer back to xi. 82, xii. 15 and forward 
to xii. 28 and xiii. 11 and then we shall begin to understand something of 
the influence of more than the Greek language on the minds of the Church 
Fathers. Observe in the 26th verse Origen 2/3 writes Geos for 0 Oeos sec. 
with only DW Hust 18, and again dcos Orig with BDW tert et quart. 
Mark 

xii, 26. ras NBCLUAY 892 al” W-H Sod txt quomodo d et latt 
as AD* unc" ef WE® minn pl et Paris™ Orig  sicut ¢ 
28. Bov N*CD (eSov ut 2") Let WED Sod™ min” Sod™= * Hystt* 
latt syr pesh aeth arm Sod™ 
edas B rell et ¥ minn? et Paris’ sah boh 
(Cf k syr sin) See above at xi. 32, xii. 15 24 
ibid, Trova exriy evtorAn Tpwtn TavTwy NBCLUAY 33 108 127 131 
Paris” boh syr aeth W-H Sod 
ra . | warwy 892 Sodurs 443 
1» on) PTOAN TpwTH (—TayTw) D Sod™ 2 acd fri 
k q syr sin sah 3/7 (amplius sah reld) 


=~ MPOTH TavTwY EvToAN . A plur et 2 et 124 1 
: vg (macwv M al.) (rwv evtorwv Sod) 
» oy» Mpwrn evroryn (—7avtwv) W 1 fam 13 [non 124] 
28 b 92 7s 
Toa eoTW TavTaY TpwTy EvTOAN Sod ivt 8.2087 
TOLA WOWTN ETTLY TAVTOV EVTOAN 273 vid = 
Toa evTody TpwTy ery Sod (+-ravtwv ?) 


Tota evToAn ects Tpwry (—mTavtwy) 604 (+7avTev ? Sod™*) 
Obs rpwrn tev evrokav (ver 28) Mcell¥* Cf also ver 29 
31. aurn ect  & boh sah 6/8 vg 


autn BLA et V 892 Paris” sah 2/8 § W-H et Sed txt 
aurns AJ Laura4! Sod"? 7, (hujus) Cf Clem infra 
opora avrn =0 AR plur et XD Sod™ (atry simile igeeed 
vel atria) similem buic a. 
opora ravrn =D fam3 Sod? Meelis ~ | similis huic & 


simile huic g 
opotws autn ~=W 
“simile est huic ¢ ff 
Oma. Libere Clem: Sevrepay Se taker cai ovdev ri Hixporepoy 
TauTns eivas Neyet TO+ ayamnces . . . 
33. cuverews, Suvapews, taxvos, item intellectu, anima, virtute, 
viribus, fortitudine mixta sunt. 


ibid. wepercorepor NBLA 33 892 Paris" W-H ot Sod txt 
TEpiocorepa vv : 
aAELOV . D relt, et W Sod(rd0v), SD minn, sed : 


kpeaccov Sod, Cf. meliora k et syr sin (aliter anceps pesh : 
Yeoha) arab et diatess. (Latt rell maius praeter a: plus], 





GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 161 
Marx 
xii. 387. eorw vos avtou «= ds Dacd fagstlqrr.vg arm 
avTou €oTLy ULOS BLT! 892 2° Sod“ W-H ¢ Sod trt 


EoTLY AUTOU VLOS A k (et ejus filius sic) & 


autou los Erte 179 7% goth sah boh 
vios auto eotiy = & rel! ef W2OY minnt! e¢ Paris” b syr 
aeth 
VLOS EOTLY AVTOV vg? 
ibid. modus NDW Sod? 28 115 213 372 2° 604 Sodtoss 1954 8:88 


0 7TOAUS B rell omn vid et 2®V Paris” 
38.t (1) 0 Se SiSacxwy apa eXeyev avToss D¥ a (Ad ille docens simul 
dicebat eis) 
o Se SiS8acKwy eXeyer avtots (—apa) Sod? 2 | 
et ille docens dicebat eis d 
al gg! 03 eae dar 
ipse autem docebat illos dicens ¢ 
ipse autem docchat eos dicens illis ff, 
(2) kat ev Ty &bayn avrov erdeyev NBLAY 8 892 bok 
eee 3 A 4 autos 33 Paris” syr pesh 
et in doctrina docebat 
et in docendo dicebat 
(3) kat edeyer autus ev ty SSayn avtov A wre’? ef SP lq vg 
goth acth 


; i — avTov 


Kat €deyev (—avTots) W fam 1 28 124 
edeyev Se avrows ev ty Stdayn avtTou sah 
And he was saying while teaching syr sin 

(Observe — avrous NBLAWWY 1 28 124 ¢ & (eé ~ avtov) 
boh 8) 


41. ectws W Sod fam 1 fam 13 28 2" Sod" arm 
syr sin Orig’® “§ “ xata papxov” 
xabioas NB (et D xaOefouevos) rell ef TOW syr 
pesh sah boh latt 
$42. edXOovea S D Sod 2” 604 it vg sah, boh™ Orig 


kat edOovea NB rell et W2PYV syr arm aeth (Om. wat “Sod 
rT exea? 9?) 


hiat goth 


+ This is an excellent place for study of three recensions. Observe how a follows, 


DF with simul; how it is bok [not sak] that the small group NBLA¥ follows ; how 
sak is with goth and A unc*; how W joins this with 28 less avros (the omission 
of which with ¢ i may be basic) ; and how Sod™ and 2 go with 6, The shortest text 
is exhibited by e & both extant for a short time from here onwards. 

¢ So as not to overburden this apparatus I have left out hitherto all such cases. 
I give this instance as it is strongly supported, because we must consider these places. 
Sir John Hawkins (op. cit. p. 150) says “‘ The two most constantly recurring causes of 
the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark are two preferences of Mark, (i) for 
Aeyew instead of eumew, and (ii) for xae instead of 8." But we must be careful to see 
what the real base of Mark has to say about this. . 

oM 





162 : CODEX B AND 1T8 ALLIES. 


xiii. 1. evs ee row DAFXA Sod 1 13 28 2?¢ 604 892 Paris” al” late 
(sah) boh syr 
€is TOV NB rell et WE®V 
9. Brerere Se vpers mapadwoovew yap vyas ets ouvedpia x 
Prerrere Se upets eavtous wapadwoovew vas es ouvedpia =BLV 
j * boh sah arm aeth 
(item +-yap al. mult et Z®. Paris” c g § syr pesh) 
kor Tapadwoovsw vas eis ovv. 1 [non fam] 28 124 [non fam] 
evra (5) upas avTous Tapadwoovew es ovv, D2°604ad fzinr 
ert Se upas avtous mapadwaovew es cuv, Soa" 
cat Swocovew upas eis cuvedpia W simpliciter Cf syr sin 
_videte deinde vos ...“*2),.. ipsos tradent in concil. & 
11. exewwo W fam 13 28 91-299 (= fam 1) 2° Sod'** Orig (syr) 
(illut k  illud vg™X2) 
avro D* (c ipsum) 
TouTo NB rell et LHV Sod (copt) (hoc adinr; id ff, 
1 gq vg”) (mut be f) 
ibid. Cf. also peptpvare MIP3 33 892 mult., mpopeptpvate plur, 
é mpocpererate VA, mpcueehone re Sod 9 gpe Laura‘ aos 
14. earnxora NBL 
exrnxos D et ¥ Paris” : 
tornxov = W fam 1 fam 13 28 Sod**" —— ornxovra 892 
€oT0S AEFGHSVAII* al. et 3 Sod” Laura* ut 
eoTos KMUXIT?? al 
(Latt et d =stantem practer k stans, a 7 stare) 
16. oricw ND 11 Paris” Sod*** d et latt nil nist retro 
es taomow B rell et WE@¥ Sod™ (ert 1a or. M) 
18. wa py yerntas yerpmvos N*e% B et W [non ord lat] of copt 
(Va MN XELLWYOS 'YyEvOVTAL De (fail vg Aug) 
.d ut non hieme veniant ad ; 
wa py xEetpwvos Tavta ywerat Ls Sod*™ (50 262) a (8) n* ¢ 
wa. pn yevyTar TavTa xepwvos fam 13 [non 124-346] 28 299 
2° Sod" ygBGMX, of Latt qui variant. Hi absque n dvyn 
vpov cum syr sin it?! et Aug". 
Habent reill gr et AX®V wa pn yevntas n puyn veov 
Xeyxovos cum go k § gat sah boh syr goth aeth. 
19. ectas (ecovta: Sod") yap ev tai nuepas exewwars T Sod! 
(ab dk nq erunt enim (in) diebus illis) (syr sin) sah 1/2 boh** 
ecoytas yap at nuepar exewor SB D® rell et WEPY minn et 
sah 1/2 rell verss 
ibid. Orupes (Grrrecs pauc) ova ov yeyovev toravTy NB unc'® et WEP(¥) - 
copt ae aeth goth 
Orurfes ova ov yeyover rote TorauTn 604 





t fam 1 hoe loco, 1-118-200-91-299.| Male Tisch de 28 eornxos. 
$ Male Tisch fiant pro veniant d. 





Mark 
xiii. 21. 
26. 
28. 
T 30. 
35. 
xiv. 1. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 163 


Orufrets orcas ove eyevovto tovavtat TD 299 (y**) dé vg arm 

Orupeis ovas ov yeyovaciv Tore TovavTaL gre 

Orurrecs ovat (ora Sod™°) ov yeyovay ovderrore to1avTae | an 
DP Sod 1132 

(—totavry WY 270 892 Sod**) 1248) 

[—xricews W 28299 sah 1l/darm; of. Laura’ Sod", syr"] 

we NBLY 892 

ov ——-Rell et WE et Paris™ 

emt Tay veperov D* syr sin 


ecce latt 





ev vepedars NB plur et SOV c (+coeli), 15 vg copt 
ev vedern — W Sod? 1 13-69 [non 124] (vederars™” teats 
346) 28 Soar, | 2 ved 
cum nubibus a b d ff, i g vg” boh® (+caeli) 
(Om. X e vg*) 
expun FSUr al. ah (expver 56 131 157 258) 
exou7} EGKM al. dilg fi vg 
(EKOYH NBCD ai.) (c copt prodeunt) Om. 124. 
pexpis orov §=sd&B 


Hexpts ov ACL unc" et &@, et YW (ueype ov) minn™ et Paris” 


peype NS (uexpes ouv Sod? 59) 
axpts ov Sod'*3 

ews W Sod’®? 259? are 

€@s ov D Sods? 

ews av fam 1 fam 13 28 Sod? 


(Latt omn et d = donec, practer k adusque ; om vid ff2) 
pesovuxtiov D* plur et ® Sod”™ 
pecovuxtioy NCLAB' et ¥ 892; pecavuerioy B* et W 
pecovuxtia © 238604 ce Sod3" Orig (et Latt media nocte) 
Sor WAS 1 13 28 348 al. tt et d Sug 
ev So\w NB rell cf BY Sod™ 

(Om. D* a i et rz [me teste]; ev Xoyw U; insidiis k) 


. estat OopuBos NBCD*L et ¥ Sod’ 2”° 604 892 (k fiat tumultus) 


OopuBos ectae A plur et W2® a (tumultus sit) 

OopuBos yernrar M 28 al. pauc. et Paris” sah boh d § (tum. fieret) 
tumultus oriatur ¢ (#2) (q) (7), tum. operetur ¢ 

OopuBou ovtos = AS 


. avrov 75 Kebadns NBCLA et W 1 [non fam] 28 435 Sod" (k) 


avtou Tn Kepadn ¥ 

avtou kata Tns Keharns Arell pl et XP Sod minn pil et Paris” 
Kata TS Kehadns avtov pact 

emt Ths xepadns avtrouv D Evst 20 d et laté™ (sah boh) 


. pel voy DW 91-299 t¢ vg vobiscum 


ped cavtay NB rell ef SPW et Sod 28 2°¢ 604 Paris” 


t This may be due to “ provincial” handling, but the fact remains that doneo is 
constant in ajl Latins but k: adusque (hiaé e). 


m2 











CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


ee sbid. evrovew D*A et ¥ min aliq et Sod” 

evTrotngar Rell et Sod?" 
xiv. 19. evs cata es NBLA et ¥ 892 

eg KaL Evra ELS Beza («dra) 
eg EXATTOS Cc 
eis Kad eva ; Orig 
eis Tap Es 244 
es Kal’ eg DA rell unc et WE® minn 


20. 


21. 


Abid. 


29. 


31. 


40. 


(singuli d e¢ vett pl, singillatim vg g, 1) 
Obs ¢: nunquid ego aut alius hoc coeperunt singuli dicere 
Obs k: numquid ego alius numquit ego singulis 
es Tov NBCL et WV 38 60 78 127 o* 8 et 892 Sod” sah boh 
es ex tov D unc ef& minn™ e¢ 28 Paria” late™ (‘ at lat- 
ini nec evs Tw aliter possunt reddere ” ut Tisch. dicebat) syr 


mapadidore D a i (traditur) c d (tradetur) r? 
mapadibote vTaryet WwW 
viraryet NB rell omn vid et verss (sed futurum 


habent sah boh)t 

Kava To .wpiopevoy Topevetat Paris*™ 
Observe eoriv yeypappevoy D (lati scriptum est) 
yeypamrrat Rell 

I have not indicated the many other places where D’s 
Greek is evidently an independent rendering of the Latin, 
such as adnOes (alone) for ovrws ete etc. 
€t Kat NBCGL et WY fam 1 fam 13 892 

Paris” Laura’! Sodmitur | 

Kau €t A plur et 2D minn pl etsi latt 


xateay =D ; 
Kav Sod" 2°°604 Sod? *™ (Cf boh xe KAW 


e co" (6?) sah (xe eujxe) syr aeth 
exTreptacws NBCD et VY 56 58 61 Paris” 
TEepisaws L Sod = fam 18 2 Sod'**" 


paddor repusoas = =9=-W 
paddov ex weptacouv fam1 
€x Tepiaias A 
€x TEeptocou A unc et XD minn” et 892" 

(amplius b c (+multa dicens) df f2 g. i lr 8 vg; tanto magis 
a vg*, magis og®; abundantius gq; “ plura loquebatur magis 
dicere”’ k, cf. ¢ arm aeth) 


Kay Tay eBay evpev avrovs NBLY 892 (q) copt 
Kat Ov evpev avTous Dabcd fk 
kat vToarpeyras eupev avtous Takuv W plur f vg (—Tadu & 90 


265 Evst 6) 


t Latt vadit, syr'™* abit. 








Mark 


ibid. 


xiv. 41. 


dd. 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 165 


The differences are as between reversus and rursus, as to 
the omission of waduw, and “ veniens invenit,” as to the Greek 
renderings (wad after «afevd. NX, before evpev Sod 2°* al’). 
xataBeBapnpevo. &* Sod'*? 
xaTaBapoupevot DW 238 253 
xataBapuvopevon BAKLNUATI* et NEWS min® e¢ fam 13 


Paris” 
xatafartilopevot Sod! 
Bapuvopevor MY®res 1-209 56 e¢ 892 Sods 1493 
BeBapnpevor CE une® ct B Sod™ al. mult (ut Matt) et 


28 157 2° 604 Laura’ ™ 
d & both have gravati (opposite xataBap.) as most other Old 
Latin, cf ff2 k q (rv mut) ra w aur and 17 vulgates, so that the 
Greek variations may spring from this simple Latin. Degra- 
vati is read only in a and b (if Buchanan be right here), while 
Amiatinus and seven vulgates with J gat have ingravati, clearly 
a variation of St. Jerome to all appearance. 
to A\orov §=©=9XNBGHKMNUV*T ATI et 3@ Sod 
al. et Paris®™ | Lait jam 
Novrov ACDEFLSV’X et WY al. 
(Cf sah tenors sah al. G€ Tenors) 


SeBaxer NB plur et WIV minn dederat bd f fl 
q 78 og 

(SeSeoxer 118-209 258) 

eSwxey D* sol. ack r? [contra d] vg? (Sedwxev Sod) 


. atapiov RBD et V fam 1 et Sod* 


wrov ACL unc et AWE® Sod’ minn Latt auriculam 


. KAL VEAVLTKOS TIS NBCL et ¥ 892 a syr arm 
veaviaxos Se Tus D (b) cdf ff, (Buchanan) k lq vg 
(ets) veavtoxos S¢ sah kar. . .(ets) veavtaxos boh Cf aeth 


kat es THs veamaxos =A unc!’ et AWE® minn” et Paris” goth 8 


.kacarddrgo0: Dab (certe Buchanan) d ff, k q r Orig™ (hiat f) 


ardou arm 
ardor Se Sod” (test. B ct G) fam 13 2°* 604 ¢ 
tives Se sah syr 
Kat Teves NB reli ef TOV bok goth vg rell latt 
TLVES ry vg? 
(In W om. Saltus ab xiv. 56 xas was usque ad 57 Aeyovres.) 





t Consult all these last entries together, and then observe the Greek of D away 
from d, yet followed (in a retranslation), just as we would expect from our previous 
studies, by ac k, In this verse D} Sod 2r* and very few others have onpecow for 
swuconpov of the rest. Be 

t I neglect xiv. 55 wa Oavaracovow (pro es to Gavareca) by Dj Sod’? 27% as latt, 
although note that Laura! supports this, while more generally running with NB. 





* 166 CODEX B AND-ITS ALLIES. 


Mark 
xiv. 58, oxodopnow NB plur Sod et 


W2OYV minn aedificabo vg 5 et 1 g (mut b f r) 


avorxodounow Orig 
avaotnow «=69D acd ff, suscitabo, k excitabo 
Tonow Paris” syr sin 


t 60.07 BWY (ef. sah boh)| ‘sib tect 
mm Nrell et L pao eer 
a1. owas «= BEHLSUVXI' — min™ et W-H tet 
§ozvver NACGKMNATI et W2Y min” et 892 Paris” Hus Sod‘* 
Neyer D (a) d gq vg* 
omy. Kat Neyew arm 


72. +0 pnpa ws NABCLA et V 892 min® 8 sah 1/2 boh goth 
TO pyya o D NXE unc’ et 2 Sod’ min” et Sod 
Tov pnuatos ov MW fam 13 al. pauc txt rec vg 
TOV pnuatos Tov imoov Paris*® (cf. 3 28) 


Tou pyparos Tov w evrovtas §=fam 1 (syr arm aeth sah aliq) 
(verbum quem a; verbum quode¢ f,k1q; verbum sicut 5; 
verborum (sic) quod d;_verbi quod vg) 
xv. 2. amqveycay NB unc? ef V minn et Paris™ arm 
amyyaryov CDGN et WE Sod” fam 1124 179 258 2% 604 
892 Evst 13 17 150 semel Sod'** #951 Orig 
(duxerunt c d ff, 1 g (hiat b) Sug; perdux.a; addux. k) Cf syr copt 


ibid. TeraTw NBD Sod* et CLAY fam 1 2” 604 892 
ec Sod*"* arirvatTe latt 
Te TiAaTw N unc" ef WS minn et tw reidatw A Paris 


aemAatoc sah boh 
4. ove atoxpivy (—ovder) B* Paris” 
ovdey amroxpivn (— oux). Pe (Sod154 30171) 
oux arroxpivy ovdey ND*B? rell ef A™WIY minn 
non respondes nihil ak 
(sed) non respondes quidquam @ ff, 1 q & [supra ovdey], ¢ (+ eis, of. 
syr sin)  boh 
non dices quidquam sah 
non reddis responsum = syr, cf. pers ut solet.( +eis syrsin, cf.c) 
nonne habes quid respondeas aeti'™* 
ibid. Katryopovew NBCD et WY fam 1 267 604 [non 2°*] 892 
Evst 48 boh aeth accusant latt et 8 Orig 
xatapaptupovow A uncil et A®E Sod minn™ et Paris” sah 
: syr arm goth 


t I neglect xiv. 60 eis pecoy or ets ro perov. 
¢ I neglect xiv. 69 sapeotwow and sapecrnxocw as well as several other things 
hereabouts. 
-§ It is no use thinking that opwvew is ex Matt. and B neutral. Refer to B's bad 
record in 68/69 under “‘ Harmonistic.” ’ 





Mark 


a1 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 167 


paptupovaly 259 
{Observe sak on the secondary side for the age of this 
variant. | 


6. ov mapntouvTo NtAB* Sod'#9847 ~— & quem postularent 


ov av nTOVvTO DG fam 13 2°* Sod? 443690 

ov NTOUYTO W 1 [non fam = ovrep yrovvto] 115 Sod* 
cf. sah boh aeth 

ov * TepnTouvTo A sic ov me p’avntouvto Sod” sic 


ovirep NTOVYTO C plur et NCB? TV minn et 604 892 Paris” 
(quemcumque ac d fz 1 [mut b q, b ab xiv. 61, ¢ ab xv. 5, 
usque ad xv. 36] 8) 
. oTagacTwy NBCDKN et WAW 1 [non fam] fam 13 
[non 124] 2°* Paris” al. pauc et Sod'*" sah (syr) 
cuveTaciactey A rell ef & minn et 892™ 604 rell boh 
goth (oractacavtwy Sod™) 
seditiosis lat 
(cum seditiosis et homicidis breviter claus habet aeth) 


t 8. avaSas NBD 892 ¢ d ff, l r vg et & (supra A avaBoneas) 


sah bok goth W-H & Sod txt (avactyaas Sod") 
avaBonoas = =Aunc? e¢ N°WEY minn omn vid (praeter 892) 
syr, arm (instanter) diatess™™” (confuse vg* ** om xv. 8) 
Om. k (accensa tota turba a) [Hiant be fiq] 
ascendit et clamavit aeth (conflat) 
[Cf Jebb de aveBnoev et aveBoncer in Reg ii. 23°.] 


abid. cabs errorer NBA et WYV3" 8" 892 Paris’? Sod?! 416 boh k & 


xabws a eroe. 183 [non fam] 
xabeos acc errovee D rell omn et X% minn latt rell vg arm goth 
xabas crmber... ? 
xaBws Bos v.... Sod? 2° GO| 
(Om xabws et ar sy7 sin). 
The original here was probably indistinct KA@WwCAEIENOIEl 
and corrupted to KAQWCENOIE! 


e sah syr pesh aeth arm 


which 13 [contra fam] shows, omitting €1, by KA@WC'AENOIE! 


and could also be misread KAOWCEIWEEI, 


as Matthew, and c sah syr pesh aeth arm indicate, but 2° 604 having 
efos nv merely make a harmony of independence. 

But are not NBAWY 892 Paris” all in the same boat? And is not 
their text younger and more corrupt than that of the original Latin (for 
all but ¢ k 8 have semper) and that, of D unc!’ fam 1 fam 13 28 33 157, 
all Wetstein’s codices, all Scholz’s, all Birch’s, all Matthaei’s, all Scrivener’s 
and all but three of Soden’s? 

[L is wanting here.] 

This question is not impertinent because if the papyrus exemplar 








+ The early collators missed this in Codex B. Not recorded in Treg or Tisch vii. 


168 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


were faint or torn here, thet just above it might be in ies same case and 
account for the variation avafas. 


ark 
xv. 10. 


14. 


15. 


18. 


19. 


22, 


23. 


trapeSoxay D®HS et W 1 [non fam] fam 18 2°* e* 604. 
Evst 47 Paris*’’* (Sod) Sod "9 @ (k) (ut Matt) 
Tapeboxetay AEGNVXA e¢ 35 al. 
et Paris® (Schmidtke) rell latt 
aapaicSaxercav XB rell et ¥ (pauc. 
tapededwxercay) 
expatov DAGEMPII* min®™ latt e¢ 8 syr arm boh 


expavyafov =. 2° TauraA 14 
expagav | NB rell et ZV minn” aeth goth sah (expatav A™) 
Bovd. Tw oxAw To wxavoyv row B{negl. W-H'** ™*] LauraA! 
soli (of. cl vg satisfacere) 
» 9 9 oy ogg TOMQTaL A plur et SY minn goth 
Roun. woijcas To txavov Tw oyrw NC Sod sah boh syr pesh 
et stn (aeth) 
(Om. ‘claus D d ff, kr‘ diatess) 
Bacirev NBDMPSVX et V3 Sod™ al. e¢ 2° 604 
o Baoirers AC? (latet C*) EFGHKNUTIAITI al. e¢ E} rex latt 
"et 892 Laura’! Paris” 
Kat etum@toyv autov (avrov 2°* nec corr. Cronin) xara es Thy 
xed. D 2 o.d ff, k sah syr sin 
Kat €TUTTOY auToU THY Kearny KardaLO NB plur et VY minn 
et Sod Paris” boh goth (—avrov 267 arm) 
Kat €TUTTTOY THY wepadqy avtov kahaxuo = © al. ef 23 892 1 vg 


aeth syr 
ayovow D* fam 13[non124]2"° (adducunt ff, perducunt 18 vg) 
duxerunt c sed perduxerunt @ 
gepovew NB rell et [VY Sod” minn et k ferunt (hiat a) 
os Se NBI'*? et 2 33 et Paris” [non 
892 vid] Sod" h boh h 
o be A rell pl et A (6 ille autem) ee 
et Y Sod minn et fam 13 2° 604 
Kae D fam laethe d f, kinr vg Aug (a lati™ ; 
. hiant enim abe fig 7) 
Kat AUTOS Ssyr sin 


This place has more interest than appears on the surface. If the 
original had been o 8e or os 8c, the Latins would not say “et non accepit,” 
but “ile antem non accepit as syr pesh and copt with Greek. But an 
original “et non accepit ’ might well have been rendered ds S¢ or 6 Se, and 
the fact that all the Latins (including &) are agreed on the one hand, while 
the Greeks are divided between os Se and o de lends force to our argument. 
The absence of Sod 2°* and 604 from the Latin column here seems to 
show something of interest. Syr sin appears conflate already. Observe 
goes against NB here. [Soden’s notes (separated) are inadequate. ] 


GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. 169 


Mark 
xv. 24. Observe also this verse under ‘‘ Differences between & 


and B.” 

[xv. 25. epvraccor pro estaupwoay D d ff, k n r. This must be 
noted but excluded owing to the probability of the change 
having been made by D and these Latins and sah to obviate 
the difficulty as to the third hour (see Tisch ad loc). 
Note that syr pesh™ says ‘‘ about the third hour.” <Aeth (ef. 
Act™" Hier’) makes it the sizth hour when they crucified 
him. If edvdaccoy were original the difficulty would be 
lightened, but hardly following the account in verses 20/24. 
(The vg? conflates with sah 2/3 adding et custodiebant eum 
after et crucifizerunt eum.) Sod contradicts D.] 

29, ot mapayoutes D* (mpoayorres 2°¢ vid) Huss sara $e rev Mopnor 
praetereuntes ed fk lr aur gat & og [=omn (nm qui 
transiebant) ; hiant b e fi q 72) 
ou Taparropevopevor NB rell gr et SV Sod™ minn 
Om. syr sin 
ibid. Tpirw nyspacs AD*PVY&*s Sod 21 122 2° Ser Sod't* 


Evst 48¢k 
ev Tpiow quepars NB rell et LV minn™ et Paris” d fil n 8 vg 
30. xcaraBas NBD"LA e¢ V Sod et Sod kin & vg bok 
xatxataBa AC pl et X minn™ (—Kxar Sod*") ¢ d ff2 goth syr 
arm aeth 
kat xataSnds P 1 al. e¢ Laura4’™ Paris” Hus (kat xaraBarw 
Sod") 


Tnvertens sah xataSa...Kat cwoov ceavtov 
3-4. ry evar 258 2” al. pauc. ‘(ev tn evaty o*), 
7 evatn wpa NBD" FL et V Sod™ fam 1 fam 13 [non 124] 892 
Paris” LauraA al, pauc. ¢ ff, (Buchanan) goth syr Eus W-H 
7 wpa tn evatn Arell et % di (incip.i xv. 38)in vg bok sah 
TN) wpa evaTy Sod (cum @ et latt contra D®™) sine auctori- 
tate Gr. ! 
Om. & 
36. Tus NBLA et V ef 892 Paris (soli vid inter minn) 8 (sol 
inter latt) (arm) W-H & Sod tat 
ets D rell omn & et minn et sah bok et lat@™ (anus) et aeth 
syr (potius quam quidem) 
This again is but a small matter, but seems a perfectly clear 
‘yevision ” by the hand of the originator of the group NBLAY 892 
Paris’. (W wanting.) Syr lends itself to either interpretation. But if 
tes Were original quidem would appear in some other Latin besides 6. 
xv. 39. e€ evartias avrov =NB plur et SV minne ff, k 18 verss plur 
exet D Sod 2° (d) in g arm? Orig (illic 
aderat pers). 
Om. 72 251 arm? autw (—e€ ev.) W 1 22 59 Sod'**" syr. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


ampocaBBatov ~ NB*CKMAM* et WY Sod 1 33 al. mult 
. mporcaBBatov AB? rell plur et % min mult 
ampw caSSarov D® (ca8Barov Sod) 
ante sabbatum d late" 
. Kay avros nv (—os) N&* 157 soli (Cf sah aeth gat syr) 
0¢ Kat auTos NY B plur et WEY minn 18 vg 
0S NY Kat auToS D Sod” Wed fikng 
. Gearavto D® Sod 2° (of Luc xxiii. 55 et Mare xvi. 11) 
eGeapovy XB rell et W minn copt (I vg aspiciebant) 
notaverunt cd ff, q ; . 
viderunt kn syr 
. init. CfD dn (k q) contra rell. 
. pa Tov caBBatov BW 1 
pa caBBatov lvg 
pia Tov caSBatouv cd ff, una sabbati, & q 7. (prima 


sabbati) aeth 


“Tn pit Tav caBBatov NLA et V Sod 33 2” 892 al. pauc 


: boh (hiat sah) Eus Hes™ 

puas caBBatov D “ 

Tas plas caBBatov ~ AG rell ef & minn pl et Paris” 
: Dion*'** Ps-Nyss 


_ ms pas tov caBBatov K fam 13 Sod™ (rov aaBZ. alig.) 


‘abid. 


bid. 


(prima septimanae syr) 

oriente sole : edn ffiq Tich, Aug (+jam) 

avaTedXovTos Tov nALou D Hes™ Tich*® 

avaretXavtos Tou nAtou NB rell et LV boh Eus 1/2 Dion*"* Ps-Nyss 

€Tt avaretAavrTos Tou NALOU KWII* Sod 1 2° 229 248 w*t 
Sod" Bus 1/2 


orto jam sole 1 vg 
Om. k [negl. Soden} 
quurs exortus esset sol syr 
. ad invicem cad fil q vg 
inter se % 
pcs €auToUs D ; 
pos eavtas NB rell et WEY minn™ 
Om. k 
. et veniunt et inveniunt detcn 


et venerunt et invenerunt ff, syr sin 

kau epxovTat Kat evpisxovow TD Sod®* 2° Hus 

kat avaBreyacat Oewpovow NB rellet WEY minnl gq 8 vg boh 
syr pesh 

et accurrentes viderunt aeth (hiat sah) 

(accesserunt et vident *) 

amotum n 

arroxexcurtopevov - TD Sod 2 cd ff, k.l gq vg 








GREEK RECENSIONS IN ST. MARK. V7 


Mark 

QTOKEKUALOTAL A plur et WIV minn Ps-Nyss (ef. Matt Luc) 
avaxexuMotat male NBL et W-H Sod tat [Vide Postscript 

in Part II.} 

xvi. 8. doB8os D* Il* Sod? et W timor c ff,  @ 

tpowos = NBrell ef SW minn ef 2 tremor kl vg et d Tsah 

boh goth 

Om, claus syr sin oBos (—Kat exotacis) arm 


tremor et pavor aeth'" (pro tpopyos [vel poBos] kar exaracis) 
(cf syr pesh) 
[Om xvi. 9-fin SB syr sin. Cf. LW k aeth.] 
9. xparn Plur (Om. Sod™, rewrys Sod, rpwrov alg) 
TH pia Eus* 
Om, wrpwtn caBB. Sod™", 
tbid, epavepwoer mpwrais D* (hiat d*) 


eparn Tpwroy Plur et SV (Hus 1/2) et verss (rpwrn 2") 
epavy (— mpwror) W arm Eus 1/2 

ibid. wap C*D"L et W 38 892 Paris’ copt™®- ™ et Sod txt 
ad A rell et & Eus®s 


de qua c@ flqévg; aqua 
10. ropvBaca D plur et WEY minn pl et 2°° 
arerbovca KI 892 al® Sod Paris™ Hier"4>  — abiit et » 
videns 1 vg’ (vadens a° d? vg) 
praecurrens c ff, 
[Explicit © xvi. 14 ametiay av.... Explicit goth xvi. 12. 
Explicit n xvi. 13 crediderunt. | Incipit o xvi. 14.] 
15. -awavra D 225 gat [Hiant a* n] 
Habent rell et WY Sod minn et boh latt et 2 a? 
(vere xat pro aravta D +xarc q syr pesh boh aeth) 


Explicit D® xvi. 15 ad verbum evayyedior. 
P 


17 fin. —xawais C*LA®™ et Va* boh arm 
Habent rell et WD? minn latt et o d? § syr pesh aeth Const Hipp. 
19. avednuddn ACD? e¢ W Sod | assumptus est ¢ d* hl aur d vg 
avernpln Rell et ¥ minn | receptus est ff g Iren 
avepepero 36 40 
avednpin nar avepepero 68 [De his omnibus tacet Sod]. 
ascendit 0 sy7 pesh diatess 
ibid. ex SeEvwv Plur et WY Iren 
ev deEcav =D? 
ex Sefta «= «179 
ev Sea «= CAT a p* 8 boh (syr) ad dexteram co q 72 


| a dextris vg 








+ Exstat D®* xvi. 7-15 evayyedov, hiat d* xvi. 6 post quaeritis. Suppl d? xvi. 6 
usque ad 20 fin et D*? xvi. 15-20. 








CHAPTER VI. 
FURTHER REMARKS AS TO LATIN BASE IN ST. Mark. 


“Salutant vos omnes sancti; maxime autem qui de Caesaris domo sunt.”— 
Phil. iv. 22. : 


Lhave stated that in St. Mark’s Gospel there appear to be two or 
three separate Greek recensions, and have asked the question whether 
the old subscriptions to some of the Greek and Syriac mss, stating that 
St. Mark not only preached but wrote his Gospel in Latin, were not 
perhaps founded on fact, or at any rate whether a Greek and a Latin 
version did not issue from his hands simultaneously. Let us try to 
examine the matter a little more closely. And next, what strikes the 
investigator at once is that there is a most remarkable agreement 
between the famous Codex Bezae’s Greek in Mark and the whole body 
of the Latins. In Buchanan’s edition of b (p. xxi.) he says “In St. Mark 
the texts are more divergent than in any other Gospel.” Jf he means 
the Latin texts I hardly think he is nght. 

Some of these places of agreement are as follows : 


ae eo BD Sod 28 it W, although 
3. Tov Oeov vpwv D* sic, (d tt”) extant, is absent 
4, >ev 77 epnpw Bartitey DSod™ itvg(praeter f) from this com- 
10. nuvypevous D tt vg (pro oxtlopevous) bination at the 
13. —exe NABDLT Sod ** 91 it vg ete ~\ opening of the 
ibid. +a (ante wepafopevos) D it vg ° Gospel. 
15. wemdnpwvrac ot Kaipoe D i” vg (pro It is most pecu- 
wemdnpwtat o xaipos) | Har, because ¢ is 
16. xas Tapaywv NBDL tt vg ete | wanting from 


(pro tepiratey Se plur ut Matt) / i. 1-20. 
ibid. tov adedgov avrov DGI1 Sod™ 33 al. pe. tt (praeter a r 8) vg 
syr pesh et sin aeth. Add W. 
20. tnxodovOncay autw (pro amndOov omisw avrov) D3 soli et tt vg. 
To these add W (and note 7\ov pro amnGov Sod”), 
21, ii. 1. xapapvaous, NBDA Sod™ minn”* it vg goth copt. Add W. 
ibid. edidacxev +avrovs D Sod it” vg arm aeth goth. 
24, -~ea NBDA? Sod 28* 157 372 2° it vg verss. To this 
array add W. Notwithstanding Orig and Eus it is probably 
brought in from Luke. 








.t A very good example. For “ secuti sunt eum" could readily be translated axnddov 
(or 7AGov as Sod™) omow avrov. The other translators vary the expression in ver 18. 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 173 


1. 25, ex Tov avOparrov (pro e€ avrov) DW (Sod™ aro, 2™) it ug 
(praeter f) tf 

27. —t earw raovro D 7 it”, To these add W and three 
lectionaries, syr sin and aeth [hiat sah]. 

30. >xarexerto Se n TevOepa oypmvos D tt vg (praeter f). To 
this group add W [Sod only indicates W by '}. 

84. avra Aarew D Sod™ it vg (praeter f) aeth for ta Satpona 
Aarev B copt and rAadew ta Sayoue all the rest and W. 

44. >deckas ceavrov (pro ceavtov Sekar) D tt vg. To this add W 
SevEar eavtov, 

45. -o\Aa Dandit rg. To this group now add W. 

We gain a preliminary point here, that the text of D goes behind W at 
a, time when NB came into being, and before our other uncials were penned. 

We gain further information, for W, as if handling a document in 
another tongue, not infrequently uses a synonym in translation. Thus 
alone i. 27 cOavpatov (mirabantur d) for eAap8nOncav, not only copying the 
tense of d, against mirati sunt of others, but giving a close interpretation. 

Here ¢ alone conflates: Ht extimuerunt ones et admirabantur... 

In the same verse the exceptional inpotentabdilis of e is rendered by W 
alone e£ovoriacrinn. Thus: tis 7 didayn Kevyn autn n eEovotiactinn avTov. 

Again, W at i. 31 with Paris®’ follows d's LATIN “ ministrabat et” 
with 8iyxov avtw, while D® has avrois. This is really very remarkable. 
No other Greeks do this, and the only other Latin is e. No coptie or 
syr nor aeth pers. 

In connection with this we have to ask the following questions. 

Why does D at i. 40 write epwrwv opposite depraecans when all other 
Grecks including W have vrapaxadwv, and we are face to face with the 
answer that wapaxadkwv = depraecans rather than that depraccans 
= epwrov. But as D* alone has epwrwy it may be that D™ was translating 
depraecans IN HIS OWN WAY into Greek! } 

Much more difficult to explain is D’s opycOecs for cmrdayyvicbes in 
i. 41 [without the countenance of W], but even here d with iratus bears 
it out, and both @ 7* and ff so write, while b§ and g, omit. See, 
however, Rendel Harris’ brilliant double explanation (‘Cod. Bezae,’ p. 186) 
from (1) confusion in Syriac or (2) from an original Latin motus instead 





+ It will not do now to say that this is ex Luc, if the whole group be basic. 

t D* has several forms peculiar to him, os at i. 32 eepooav for edepor; vi. 14 
eAeyooar; i. 27 eOapBnoay for ebayBnéycav, with Origen; ix. 9 edocar; ix. 83 nA@ocay ; 
xii. 36 wow; xiii, 34 Bupovpw; xv. 43 ernoaro. 

§ In this connection while seeking the ultimate base we must consider other of b’s 
omissions (b in very short lines is most important in St. Mark). See i. 87 Dicentes (pro 
kat evpov avrov kat Aeyovow of NBL e aeth, or xae evpovres avrov Acy. A unc” boh, or rac 
ore evpov avroy ey. D latt pl sah) by bc and W*. Here we have three varying intro- 
ductions all cut short by W2 c. So at i. 10 (and at several other places) D d omit evdus, 
here witha b fr. Note ii. 12 —Aeyovras BW 6 as against the rest and the variation xa 
Aeyew of D. Here W strengthening B added to b does look like the lost base. 


174 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


of misertus of most and iratus of d. Harris forgets to say that b leaves 
out the word as g, or vg®. This shows some difficulty which bothered 
them. Nor does he refer to vi. 84 where for eorhayyweOn d and g [not 
b] r [not a] have condoluit, using quite a different word from the usual 
misertus est (vor. TT), Observe further motus turning up in the us n 
at xvi. 4 where n uses amotum for re-volutum of the rest of the itala. 
This is the place where NBL W-H Sod substitute avaxexudiorat for 
amokex. In dealing with the problem we must be careful not to let NBL 
mislead ua as to the basic text. For instance at i. 39 NBL Sod 
(only) substitute with copt and aeth mdOev for nv [followed by Hort and 
Soden]. Butthisisapurecorrection. All the Latins in the rough: “et erat 
praedicans”’ support xat nv xnpvoowy of D and all the other Greeks and W. 
Another very hard place is iv. 6 init. where the authorities differ so 
much as to construction, with D and W on opposite sides. 6 and ¢ show 
that we have somehow lost the original base (syr sin is mutilated). 
Perhaps Harris can make another brilliant suggestion for restoration ? 
Another equivocal place is at iv. 14 0 oe:pwy Tov Aoyov gretpet. The 
Greeks and D d are agreed as to 0 oreipwv, but a ¢ b q r substitute gut 
loguitur. This is probably an “improvement.” It is curious, however, to 
find b-q together confirming it, and ¢ € wanting), but W with D opposes, 


This is complicated further by the reading in the following verse, 
Mark iv. 15. 


Instead of oweu ozeiperas o Noyos which even W holds, a bc q again 
make a substitution, this time strengthened by f [non goth] r. They say 
qui negligenter verbum suscipiunt, or (c) qui negligunt verbum suscipientes. 
D has not this but writes os for orev as d ff quibus seminatur verbum. 
We have accounted for a bcd (hiant ek Cypr) f ff q r. Now t varies 
thus “hi autem sunt qui circa viam ““! seminatur verbum,” eliding quibus 
but writing ubt above as vgg : ubi seminatur verbum. The Greeks (and W) 
with copt aeth goth have this ubi, so we are wide apart as to Latin and 
the rest. The question is as to what was the original difficulty in the 
Latin or Greek base which caused the difference. I suppose the original 
for ubit must have been quo, but how get “‘ negligenter verbum suscipiunt” 
out of ‘‘ seminatur verbum.” The semi-parallel in Matt. does not help 
(kat pn ovmevtos), nor does St. Luke viii. 12 where we read only ov Se vapa 
thv oS0v eow ot axovgarvres. There is nothing there about negligenter. 
Turning to the Greek for a key, aipéw or dvaipéw could replace oveipw, 
but would hardly do. omaipw or doraipw, while of similar sound to o7eipe, 
involve plucking off violently as opposed to the neglegenter of the Latins. 
omrepporoyéw = pick up seed, is possible but improbable. The verb ddoyéw 
conveys neglect but I do not see how it would fit. In the Greek, to agree 
with the Latin, 6 X\éyos must be turned into an accusative, so that seems 
out of the question as a base from which the Latins drew. 

On the other hand the Latin verbum serving for a nominative or 





LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 175 


accusative distinctly answers the requirements of swbject or of object, so 
that it is more likely that a Latin base is responsible for the change. 
How could it occur? Instead of seminatur, originally seritur (cf. a) may 
have been used. Could serifur have become confused with segniter (a 
synonym for negligenter)? But then we do not account for suscipiunt 
jnstead of seminatur or seritw. Sero, sevi could hardly have been confused 
with sero, serni (‘‘ join in, engage in, put together”). I would like someone 
to exercise his ingenuity here. I have never seen an explanation offered. 

The strange thing is to find a opposing both d and D", for elsewhere 
a = D™, so that D d here are probably not basic. Even b-g are together 
for the whole sentence, which absolutely proves that we have the correct 
b base. The omission by syr sin is significant. He probably saw the utter 
conflict between Latin and Greek, and therefore dropped the words. The 
omission cannot be basic. Observe the persian (syr hier wanting). I 
recapitulate, Gr™ (aeth sah boh go arm’ vgg) :—~ 

= omov ametperat o Aoyos (D ft fy g, syr pesh os oretperat o Aayos) 

b-g Hi autem sunt qui juxta viam seminantur qui neglegenter verbum suscipiunt 
a Hi autem sunt qui secus viam seminati sunt ,, 
fr Hi autem sunt qui circa viam seminati sunt ,, < 
c Hi autem qui seminantur circa viam ipsi sunt qui negligunt sera suscipientes 


syr sin Hi autem qui sunt juxta viam illi sunt qui audiunt verbum (tentum) 
pers Id quod juxta viam cecidit homines qui audiunt et memoria tenent. 


” ” ” 


Mark vi. 81. 


Another obscure but very interesting place occurs at vi. 31 which may 
well occupy our ingenuity. Here then we are offered these alternatives : 
Seure veers (—avrot) Kat ieay evs epnyov ToTroy W, Sod” 1 28 2° gire 


Seure vers autor xatiouay evs epnpov ToTrov NB plur sah boh 
Secure uTaywmev ets Epnuov ToTroy Dedf,ir 

Seure uTAaywMEY KaTOLaY ELS EpNUOV TOTO a 

Seure viraryopev evs epnuov ToToy umes xaTidiay syr pesh sin aeth diat 


The Latins then only vary between 
venite vos ipsi seorsum 6 


venite seorsum... fog plur (venite vos seorsum vg*) 
venite vos secreto bq 
venite eamus... cd fiir 


venite eamus seorsum @ 
but there is a wide difference in Greek between fupers or vues avros and 
the vrraywpev of D* sol. ; 

(A few vulgates BITO° conflate: venite seorsum eamus.) 

Whence then eamus (which must have provoked viraywuev of D*, 
and is as old as syr sin and aeth) by cd f,i7r? Why do bg not join? 
Observe that something has happened between b and / vgg, for secreto and 
seorsum change places. Observe also that @ restores this xaridvay by 
seorsum although holding eamus, while the syriacs and aeth convey it to 


176 * CODEX B AND ‘ITS ALLIES. 


the end of the sentence, but coptic follows the usual Greek. The difference 
must be very old [the parallels afford no clue whatever]. 

‘What we have to find is an M in a word to correspond with the 
interchange of vos and eamus. The most likely seems an original vosmet 
(Speis adroit most Gks), this being misread in the close uncials for eamus. 
The equivalent of xat:S:av may have been absent or occupied a place after 
epnpov toTov as in syr. If we are correct, then b holds the original 
sense, and c ff, 7 r, with a, followed d, while the Greeks know nothing 
. of it, but the syriacs and aeth do. 

The diatess arab is following Mark here and corresponds with syr sin 
and‘syr pesh, while vg? the Latin diatessaron, is ex Matt xiv. 13 “ Quod 
cum audisset Jesus secessit inde in nanicula in locum desertum seorsum.”’ 

In this very verse (vi. 31) occurs a remarkable change by W (alone) 
of Aowrov for odvyov. If this was ~not suggested from the dorrox of 
Mark xiv. 41 (where avazraveoGe also occurs) it might be a change due to 
translation, but then pusillum of our Latins must have been represented 
by paulatim or senstm or some other word. 


Mark xiv. 72.. 


There is a passage which ought to’ be a key, but it can be read as 
indicating Greek reaction on Latin as well as Latin on Greek. 

I refer to that very difficalt phrase in Mark xiv. 72 as to St. Peter 
“ xa emiBarwy exratev.” This ers8adrwv has generally been referred to 
the mind, as in our translation ‘ And when he thought thereon he wept” 
which the Revised Version left unchanged, merely putting ‘‘ And he 
began to weep ” [as D Sod*° 2?*, all the Latins and goth: “‘ et coepit flere ’’} 
in the margin. But in the N.T. out of seventeen other occasions where 
emtBaddew is used, in no less than eleven passages it is used with tas 
xEtpas (Mark xiv. 46 (in this same chapter), Matt. xxvi. 50, Luke ix. 62, 
xx. 19, xxi. 12, John vii. 30, and 44, Acts iv. 3, v. 18, xii. 1, xxi. 27]. 
Now the Coptics so understood tt at Mark xiv. 72. 

Sah has «at eBadev my xapa avTou KAacey, 

Boh has wat ewtBadwv my xeapa avtoy exravoev. That is, he threw 
up his hand, he covered his face with his hand, as he choked down the 
sobs. Is this an interpretation or is the old Latin base responsible ? 

: For Et coepit flere, the original may have been ETINCEPITFLERE, 
and this is not unlike ETINJECITFLERE. 
Whether injecit could be used without manum colloquially I do not know. 

There are some passages in Plautus which suggest elision of different 

kinds, but none as direct as required to support such a supposition here.t 








¢ Capretvet ii. 2. 16/18 we read: 
Tynd, Nunc senex est in tonstrina ; nunc jam cultros attinet. 
Ne is quidem involucre injicere voluit, vestem ut ne inquinet. 
Sed utrum strictimne attonsurum dicam esse an per pectinem. 








LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 177 


As to this becoming xac em Badwv exravoev (or exdasev) there are hosts 
of instances where the Greek exchanges the Tuitin perfect and infinitive 
for the participle and perfect, so that this need not cause any difficulty. 
But wyicio is freely used in Latin with manum or manus: “ inicere 
manuni aliqui,” and to summon before a judge injexit manum (Plautus). 
So also of jaceo “to be cast down”: ‘Gnaeus noster ut totus jacet”’ 
(Cicero), “ vultusque attolle jacentes” (Ovid), “Jacentes vix oculos 
tollens”” (Ovid). But jacens will not correspond to emsPaddov, so that 
we are thrown back on inicio the usual Latin equivalent in N.T. of 
emBardw. 

A and 247 Sod'*** have xa: ertAaSwv for xas ertBarwv, while one notable 
Greek cursive (c") has xa: erthaRopmevos, for the use of which we can 
refer to Luke ix. 47, where emiAaBopevos macdiov (rqv yeipa tov being 
understood) is used by most authorities.’ Cf. also Luc xiv. 4, xxiii. 26. 

‘Blomfield’s note ad loc. (Mark xiv. 72) in his Greek N.T. is clear and 
apposite and may be consulted for a good and condensed statement of the 
situation. He says “...In fact there should seem rather to be an ellipsis 
—though to determine with certainty what was originally the plena 
locutio is perhaps impossible...” To him was unknown the coptic 
testimony, and he closes by citing Chrysostom, Theophylact., Salmasius, 
Suicer, Elsner, Fischer etc for evtPadev to be the equivalent of em:xadv- 
‘vauevos, “‘ having covered his head (with his vest),” although he admits 
that here too while ér@dAAew iudriov is a frequent expression, not one 
example has been adduced of the elliptical use.{ 


As to Mark it. 7 fin. 


Although €1¢ could drop out before OC in ii. 7 jin. it is noteworthy 
that while @ (with all Latins except a) has solus ds, D® omits €1¢ which 
the others all have. Thus D* in translating might purposely elide solus. 
Observe here that @ against all other Latins has wus for solus, clearly 
retranslating es, This explains several most difficult things about a. It 
appears thus that @ was retranslating from D’s Greek} as explained 
previously, p. 127 seq. Thus at i. 6 @ renders D*’s Seppyy by pellem, 
wlthough d and the rest have pilos. 

Here the expression is “ to throw a napkin” (‘‘ about his neck ” understood). 
Carrerver iv, 2.17 ...tum genu ad quemique jecero (the bolt from a catapult under- 
stood) ad terram dabo. fi 
Asin. iii, 2. 36.: Nimis aegre risum continui (without hand) followed by 
40: Opprime os (without hand). Is est. Subauscultemus. 

Sometimes manum accompanies cedo (Epidicus iv, 1.32), sometimes not. Sometimes 
dextram is used without manum (Curculio ii. 3. 27, 3. 60). Sometimes ostende is used 
alone (Aulul. iv. 4. 5/25). 

t So Plautus, Asin, iii, 2.41; ‘“lacrumantem lacinia tenet lacrumans.”” 

} See elsewhere as to eumpooGer evavrioy or evonioy in Mark ii. 12, where coram is 
constant by all. In ix. 2 coram obtains again in all except a which has in conspectu (as 
favoured by a in St. Luke) and & which has ante. Observe v.17 where all and W have 
y €uro mapaxaXew With the Latins, D, with Sod™ 2° 604 Sod"” $*, has mapexadouy and so a. 

N 








178 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


We must bear this carefully in mind. It was a very old copy of D, 
for at i. 7 right after this D a (r) agree in cas edeye avtas for xat exnpvacev 
Aeyewv of all the rest: But Dd are agreed here, so that a really has the 
foundation text of D, if not always of d.f Observe other places as iv. 4 
eyevero is omitted by DF Sod*"* d syr vg and all Latins but a. So that in 
St. Mark a is a very curious and interesting witness. Dd with 6 for 
- control as to the base seem to represent s foundation text remarkable for 
shortness (still further shortened by }) which is agreed to in the main by 
the other Latins. NB are uncertain witnesses in St. Mark (N has evidence 
of much retranslation from Latin) and but for the light thrown on the 
Graeco-Latin problem by 2% and 604 we should not know “ where we 
were at.” To the additional light provided by 2°* and 604 now add the 
perfectly wonderful and extraordinary Graeco-Latin text found in W. 
Often graecising the exact Latin wording of ¢ (as & does in Matt and 
Luke), it deflects often to D d, and yet again alone to b,t where probably 
W b hold the true original D base, lost today in Dd themselves. Not 
only is the text’ of ¢,as well as of c, transported bodily to the fourth 
century, but all the variations between XB and D and W and b and ¢ 
and ¢ and k are found to be anterior to 350 a.D. and have nothing to do 
with the period intervening between 350 and 700. The variations being 
so ancient makes it difficult to disentangle them, but W throws much 
new light on the question. 

To return to a, observe ii. 1 cognitum est for axoveOn (auditum est it 
vg). This seems to show clearly that a was translated (freely) back 
from the Greek, while the Latins all hold the literal sense. So at ii. 4 
$ca ig rendered by a “ propter” but i?! = prae and DW azo. At iv. 4 all 
Latt omit eyevero except a. So at iv. 14 for seminat we find serit in a. 
At vi. 55 @ alone renders suPER grabbatos for ems (row) xpaBBatos of 
Greeks including D, while d and Lait generally have in grabatis. At 
vii. 27 D®* Sod and a = Aeye, but d diztt as latt pl and Gr plur sah, 
while NBLA write edeyev with bok. At ix. 4 suveAadouv of D Sod 1 2°° 
only is followed by an (against participial construction all other Greeks 
and Latins). At ix. 42 @ follows (C*?) D alone with jfidem habentibus 
(—es ene) for tov miorw exovrwy while the other Greeks have rw 
amvstevorvtwy and d@ fidem habentium. 

: + Very rarely D ad oppose the rest, but a case occurs at vi. 28 cas qveycev ray 

xepadny (—avrov) by D da only. This is the more curious because vi. 29 inté, right 
afterwards a says xat axoveavres (et cum audissent) with the Greeks against axovaavres de 
of D and audientes autem d, while the rest and vg say quo audito, minus the copula. 

¢ A most striking instance occurs, almost conclusive for translation from b’s Latin 
into W's Greek, at ii. 1. Among the variations of ereAOwv (0 eAOwv) tak by NBL D© 
28 etc, against exonAbev madw of A etc, and makw eson\dev of d and the Latins “iterum 
intravit,” b 7 stand out for “iterum venté” (“venit iterum e) and W alone says walw 
epxerac retaining the Latin order of b d ff 9,2. q vg, but giving us the present tense, 
for which venit will stand as well as for nAéev. Yet D's Greek and W keap sometimes 
very close. See ii. 21 ext uv panres D alone for empanre the rest, while W has alone 


excovvarri! [Sod neglects W.] The Latins do not vary, not conveying ov except. by 
adsuit. : 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 179 


In the hint I threw out in my ‘Genesis of the Versions’ (p. 28) my 
first example was Mark ii. 12 ezwpoodev NBLLW 187 mg 604 892 Paris” 
only, while evwmor by O@ Sod 28 33 ce LauraA™ Sod Hyst 29, and 
evavriov by the mass and D (eymp. evavtiov Sod''), Here we have three 
variations for ‘‘coram’’ WHICH REMAINS CONSTANT IN THE LaTIN Mss. 
As it is constant it may be primitive, that is it may precede all these 
Greeks. For elsewhere, the case is quite different. Take St. Luke— 


Luke 


ante lati! et vg, sed coram 8, 
in conspectu a d 
coram lati™ et vg, sed in con- 


v.19. Gr. eumrpoodev 


xii. 8. exmrpoodey 


spectu d 

9. eurpocbev D al. vel evwrtov = coram lati ef vg, sed in con- 
spectu d 

xiv. 2. eumpooGev avrov = ante illum até" et vg, sed apud 
ipsum e, presente illo 6, in conspectu ejus d 

xix. 4. evs To eumpoobev Variant plur latt 

27. eumpocbev pov = ante me lati" ef vg, sed coram 
me e, in conspectu meo a d 

xxi. 36. exarpoobev tov viov Tov avou = ante fil. hom. laté*' et vg, in 
, conspectu fili hom. df 

x. 4. eumpooev avrwy wopeveras =ante eas vadit lati" et vg, 
coram eas vadit 6, praecedit eas r 

xii. 87. euwpocbeyv avtwv = coram eis lati" et vg, in con- 


spectu eorum df (r) 


ante latt?! et vg, ante faciem e, 
in conspectu d f Hier 

coram lait" et vg, in conspectu 
ede Aug 


i. 6. evavtioy (vel evwrov) 


xxiv. 19. evayttoy (evwriov D) 


in conspectu latt® ef vg, ante 
gg, coram @ 

viii. 82, evavtiov = coram latt" et vg, ante Iren 1/2 

Tert, in conspectu Iren 1/2 


vil. 10. evavrioy (vel evavts) 


1,15, evwmiov = coram lati” et vg, in conspectu 
ad Iren 

17. evo ov = ante latt” et vg, in conspectu 
ad Iren Ambr, coram Tert 

19. evwrriov = ante lati? et vg, in conspectu 
ad f; om fF. 


I need not make a more ample list. The matter seems quite clear 
that when translating Greek into Latin there result three Latin variations. 
When translating Latin into Greek (as possibly in St. Mark) three Greek 
varieties are the result. This list has already appeared under Synonyms 
in St. Mark. I reprint here for convenience of reference. 

wn 2 


180 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


A feature also, which is quite important, is the treatment of the 
Greek articles in D. For instance at ii. 2 D omits tov before Xoyov (alone) ; 
at ii. 18 —o0 (before oyAos) alone with 3; at ii.17 D writes cat Tov taxwBov 
for xas taxwBov tov, and cas rov ww. tov for Kas wavyny Tov; at ii. 7 D adds 
tas before apaptias (alone). This seems to show that D was translating 
‘independently from d. The others by not conforming to this perhaps 
“indicate the second translation into Greek from Latin, which thus would 
be one other separate recension. 

As to this matter of the article, notice: 


Mark 
Hi. 26. +70 (ante Tedos) D 

iv. 5. +-rv (ante ynv) D 
26. —rov (ante cropor) DW Sod only (see Sod **° *° 288 £) 
28. +0 (ante cecros) DW only (confuse Sod). 
38. —7o (ante mpooxed.) DW Sod fam 1 28 235 2°¢ 604 (see Sod) 

vi. 29. +70 (ante pvnpciw) D® min™ 
35. —o (ante ro7ros) D p*" 
4]. —tous (ante qevte) D 
55. —Tots (ante ypaB.) DW Sod™ fam 1 2°¢ Sod" 

vil. 6. —Twv D 
21. —o0 (ante xaxot) DW Sod** (cf. & 28 syr sin) 
29. —Tov D 
30. — Tov (ante otxov) D 
31. ras Sexatrorcws (pro Sexarohews) DW Sod sah es THY 

: SexaTtroury W 

‘ (Observe vii. 33 —rovs ante Saxrvdovs W""} 

vill. 11. +70 (ante onpecov) D (Obs. Sod®™ 2° +71) 
33. ~7a sec. D& 225 [male Paris” Soden contra 

Schmidtke] 


(Observe viii. 37 +0 ante avOpwiros B cum copt) 
ix. 14. +roug (ante.ypappares) DI Sod’ 273 2 Sod“ 


15. —o (ante oxdas) D Sod Sod* 
(Observe ix. 26 + tous ante woddovs NABLAY 83 Paris” Lauraé™) 
31. —o (ante utos) D 


36. +70 (ante ma:d:0v) D Sod*® 318 

43. — ras (ante xerpas) DY (LauraA Sod, male?, non Lake) v** 
x. 21. + ous (ante rrayors) NCD® Sod min™s 

41. +7ov (ante taxwBov)’ D fy Fe 


xi. 11. —s (ante wpas) D 2Pe 245 Sod’ 
92. +rov (ante Oeov) DW 
xii. 23. +1 (ante yuv7) AD* 13 [non W] Paris” Sod'¥* 
26. —0o (ante Beas sec.) DW Evst 18 Orig 2/3 
tbid. -o( ,, 4, tertet quart) BDW Orig™ 
87. —0 (ante modus) ND W 28115 213 2°° 604 Sod? 1099 89 soli" 
‘40. —Tas DW 


—Tev DW 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 181 


Mark 
Rill. 3. +0 (ante erpos) DS Sod al" 
10. —Ta (ante cOvn) D 2°? (Sod non Cronin) Sod? 
xiv. 47. —rqv (ante payarpav) DW 1124435 2°¢ Fst? Sod** [non] 
60. +70 (ante pecov) DM®Y Sod? min™'4 


62. —ts (ante Suvapews) D 
xv. 1. + ev (ante ypappatewv) NDW Sod’ 2° Sod" copt 

G. +17v (ante eoprnv) D 
ll. —tov (ante BapaBBav) D 
12. Baairer (male Sod tw Bac.) D** (pro rov Bactrea) regem d 
21. +7ov (ante ctuwva) D , 

+ Tov (ante xupnvatov) D are 

40. —7n (ante paySadnvn) D (etiam D@ in ver 47) 


43. —o (ante ato) DW)" paue. 
46. +1 (ante pvnpew) D 267 pauc. 
ibid. +s (ante werpas) D(W) Sod pane. 
xvi. 6. +7ov (ante inoovr) D 


9. ~—1 (ante paySadnvn) D 


Combination of the itala with D and DW. 


at But let us continue to see what the lists proceed to tell us: 
Mar 


ii. 1. wadw eondOev 372 d et it vg (contra D® et NBL etc) wadw 
epxeras W = iterum venit ut b q 
4. mpoceyyicat =D plur et it (praeter fl = vg offerre ut NBIL 
Sod®™ 372 copt mpoceveyxa) et W mpocedOew 
This is very important in view of W’s independent translation. 
ibid. -avtw DK*2 tt pl : 
ibid. —eEopuvEavtes DW it” (non f l vg) 
6 fin. +Xeyorres DW 2°¢ ¢¢?! (non f 1 ¢ vg) 
14. taxwfov (pro revew vel Never) D Sod fam 13 2” zt (praeter 
iq)t 
15. wodXdot oc =D it vg (non Gr om oi) t Me 
17. -avtos DW fam 1 28 it 
21. Consult DW fatt. 








t+ If this be basic, as seems probable (and ¢f Orig ad loc), we can easily account for 
the defection of f and q, for f has been seen already to depart constantly from the regular 
ranks, and g has merely been revised here [5 is quite enough against q] as all the Greeks 
except fam 13 and 2°¢. Even W reads Aevew and 604 Paris” do not join 2° here. g, and 7, 
have here been “ vulgatised”’ also. Syr sin is wanting and only begins again at ii. 21. 

¢ This is an important matter. All Latins hold qut, but the Greeks including 
W omit. Some Latins omit the xa following. If moddo: o: be original the o: was lost 
early ina copy which lay at the foundation of all the Greeks, for none preserve it. Yet 
all Latins have qui. (0: pro xa 2"; male Sod de Sod, habet woddor tantum.) 

The whole verse is very interesting, At the beginning eyevero is changed to ywerat 
by NBLW 33 2r¢ 604 892" [but not Paris”]. Om. Sod, The Latin is factum est. NBIs 
follow with xataxeOu avrov, but not W which has avuxepevov avrev corresponding to D 
karaxetpevwy avtov and a bc d ff r with the Jatin abl. absolute (q discumbente illo and 
e reverses the order). If W is retranslating avax. would be quite easy. 





182 ‘ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Mark : Pas 
: ii. 23. Observe wropevesOas W fam 13 Sod'* only (ambulare it”, transire 


c eff) against S:amropeverOar BCD and zraparropevecbat rell. 
‘ibid. —oSovrovew me DW Evst 26 it et 8 [contra A] (praeter 
: alrgq — 
24 init. ot 8 (pro cat or) DW Sod it vg contra rell Gr omn 
thid. +04 pabyta cov D [non W] Sod™ min 113 28 etc it (praeter e) 


25 fin. +ortes D et tt vg +erant ut A +noav 
26. —em afubap DW [non Sod] 271 it” syr sin 
iii. 2. —avrov sec. DW Sod! *” it og 
4, evrev (pro deyet) | D ie 
* 4bid. mpos avtous (pro autos) TD it™ 
7. 0 de enoous DW Sod it vg”! boh [contra sah et Gr} 
thid. —nxodovOncav » DCW. Cf. ver, 8) 28 124 it 


ibid. ~-azro (ante Tns wovdaias) DW 28 604 al. ‘pauc. it” vg 
[Observe iii. 8. axovovtes. NBWA fam 1.13 Wbocdef fa 
grtl gr 8 vg, axovoavres D® reli gr et (a)] 
15. Kat eSeoxey autos (pro xas exer) DW 372 tt vg (praeter ae q) 
19, cxapiwd D iw 
20. —avrous . Det latt (avtov Sod™. Cf. e ff posset) 
21. x Nat OTE NKOVoaY Tept avTou ov ypap. Kat oF AowTor DW (sed W 
Ka exovcaytes) qfant varlane minimom 
ibid fin. eEeotatat avrovs. D (Sod fam 13 2°* —avrous) it”. Cf W 
e€nprnvtat avrov (Rell e€eorn; efeorw AA c™) 
26. catavay exBadrer pepepicbar eh eavtoy (pro avectn ed eavtoy 
: epepioOn vel xat epeptaOn vel kar pepeptetar) D (Sod) it?! 
(W syr sin ep eavrov eneprcOn — avertn) 
27. ouiav (—avtov) DW it” et ef. ord contra NBCLA (cf. W bce) 
28. A wonderful commentary is offered here. For W (replacing D d) 
with abce fF igqr vg Cypr™ Ambrst aeth omit oca av 
Bracdypntwow which D d and f t vg have with the rest of 
Greeks and copét (syr). This lost line ova av Bracdnunowow 
occurs above oc 8 av Prardnunoy (or as in D, it rans oc 
av S tis Braodnunon) and was lost from -homoioteleuton 
probably. W and the mass of Latins remain together. D and 
- the mass of Greeks. So that W and tala certainly trace to 
2 / one copy of same lies as d, 
. 29. — ets TOV auava ° DW Sod™ min alig id’ Ath Cypr™ 
thid. awaptias CcPDW ai 13 Ath. Cf it. («piparos Sod*, 
: xoracews Sod’) 
30. exes avtoy (pro exe) Ww d ie (D exew —avrovr) 
31. epyeras NDGW Sod fam 1179 2° 892 Sod it". 
Thereagainst in this chapter at iii. 10 D d with jf both seem to go 
wrong and leave the common Latin base, for they agree with most . 
Greeks in eBeparrevoev, while KII e'* w*" have eOepamrevey confirmed by a b 
cefg,ilgvg boh syr. So far we have thought that these Latins and KIT 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 183 


were aberrant, but behold W Sod" witness to eOepamever, so that it is 
either basic or they got it from the Latin. The latter seems pretty sure for 
in the next verse W gives (alone, abstrusé Sod. de D) ior for eBewpovy 
and holds Aeyovres of NDK only (dicentes Jatt) for Aeyovra of the rest to 
agree with mvevpata ta axafapta. And ver. 15 jin has an addition only 


known toace. 


Mark 
iv. 1. «ae nptato takw DW (209) 2° Sod! it?! sah aeth 


ibid. mpoo (pro tapa) DW [non min vid] et latt “ad” 
ibid. W controls D’s Greek here beautifully for D* says o Aaos 
opposite turba of d and all lati. W does not agree with 
D*, showing turba and not populus to be basic. Orig'™* uses 
populus however, probably retranslating D’s o Aaos, so that D 
and d at one time were separate as I supposed, for Orig™ here 
is against all Latins. 
tbid. Observe W in the rest of the verse, 
4, —eyevero DEF(W) Sod™® it (praeter a) vg 
5. Observe aliud @ et latt et Gr pl addo contra addva D® 33 2” al. 
: pauc. and caecidit d rell against erecav D® Sod''® 
ibid. eme ta Tetpwdn NDW 1 33 179 372 Qve Sods? 1949 1443 [qeen! 
ibid. ae ore (pro orrov) DW it?! (xa orov B a? soli) 
10. o¢ wu@yrat avrov (pro ov mepe avrev ovy rows bwSexa) DW 
Sod? fam 13 28 2° it omn (praeter f) syr sin diatess [non pesh}. 
ibid. tis) mapaBoryn avtn DW Sod fam13 28 2% im *! vg™ (rac 
mapaBoras NBCLA, tyv rapaBoany A unc’ L® etc.) De parabola 
illa vel de parabolis gat aur vg® syr et boh (eoSe) [tev rapa- 
Baroy -eeke sah} 
11. Aeyer (pro ereyer) DW [male Sod. de 28] it”! 
ibid. Neyerae (pro ywerat) . D[non W] E Sod'* 28 64 124 20° it'reor™ 
16. -opows DW Sod fam 1 fam 18 [non 124-346] 28 
435 2°¢ 604 Paris zt (praeter f go) (syr) 
This is noteworthy because ali the important sympathising cursives 
go with DW here, deserting NB which here take different sides: opo:ws 
ecow RCLA 267 Sod, ciciy onows B rell. 
iv. 17. nat Sewypou (pro 7 Starypou) DW jim meter 4b) yg 
19. —ae wept ta hove emibypiae DW 1 28 (Gf. Sod? 2°* 604) it”! 


ibid, axaptrot ywovtat DW Sod 124 it"! bok 
cdef fir (prob.; mut a) 
$21. amrera: (pre epyetac) D sah boh (accendit et 


wateTat - 4 W fam 13 afferet aeth) [epyeracGr 
omn rell et minn syr] 





+ This is a beantifu) place to consider. Notice 6 is absent from the Latins and has 
adfertur, amreras has a double meaning. Here probably D* holds an original base and 
d “ accenditur ” is not basic, yet ii must have so gone through the Latins to W who has 
xaterat With fam 18, and not amreras. Aeth conflates. Sah boh follow the Latin, but 
not syr pesh (hiat sin). : 





184 


33. 


34. 


36. 


abhid, 


37. 


ibid. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. Note here that W Sod™° 5 ¢ seem to hold the base orav init. 


tantum, although D with d ac f ff g.1 1 q vg aeth write xa 
orav, and XB rell gr oray Se with syr and copt. 
Similarly W 6 e join NBCLA for ws here, against rit of 
DA une” 3H Sod™ the other Latins and copt syr arm aeth goth’ 
Orig. It is possible here however that W be changed with 
NBCLA to avuid redundancy from ev tw following, for D ete. 
reverse below and substitute ev aro for ev tux. Origen has 
Twt...ev twe which is probably the original Egyptian Greek, 
(¢f. boh). 
Similarly woAdais is omitted by W b ce and C**“LAS3 some 
min and syr aeth boh arm, while found in NB etc, and in D 
rell latt but in differing positions. . 
There is a sharp division here, for while DW e #27 q r (eis, 
mut a) and Origen read eredvev avtas, 8B rell gr, verss and 
other Latins including b ¢ read erehve wrayra (one sah Ms 114 
omits both varta and avtas). 
Kau adtovaty Tov oyAov Kat (pro Kat agpevres tov oysov) DW 
Sod” fam 18 28 2° 604 be de ffi gq r (mut a) contra rell. 
Observe W: xat apa arodXot noav pet auto 
e (r*) et stmul multi erant cum eo 
et multae naves simul erant cum illo b 
et aliae naves simul erant cum illo 
et aliae naves multae simul erant cum illo fr 
et multae simul naves erant cum illo 7 g, 7 (om naves r*, 
: : hiat a) 


ordo tantusdem 


Sod 2° cat ta adda Ta ovta TOA peT aUTOU 

D «at adda Se TAotat TWOANAL Noav eT avToU | (—stmul) 

d etaliae autem naves multae erant cum illo 

peyadn aveuov BDLA Sod” fam 1 fam 13 2° 604 be d ff, 

g2thlqr6é vg magna venti 

All Latins are accounted for except a (missing) f and e; 

f goes with goth and A aveyou peyadn, but e is found as usual 

in company with W. e¢ magn? venti and W yeyadou avepou. 

So in the next clause among all the Greek variations W alone 

with eweSadrey practically follows e inmittebantur, but in 

the last part of the verse while N* e omit wore én 

yeurkerOar ro mrowov W does not do so, but has wore avro 

ndn yeuster Oar. : 

— 759 Sod 3742" (praeter a) et d contra D* et § contra A® vg aeth. 
(Om claus &* e, non W) 


. Sieyeipavtes (pro Steyeipovery..xar vel eyepovow. .xat) DW 


Sod 28 2° 604 (eyecparres fam 13) it”! 


. Observe eyepOets (pro SteyepOeis) DW [non Sod] fam 13 21 28 


* 51 217 604 Paris” al? Sod*-5 e surgens (pro exsurgens rell) 





LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 185 


Mark 
t ibid. nat Ty Baragaon Kat evrrev (pro Kas evrev Ty Oarazan) DW 


fam 1 2°° 604 i"! 
ibid. Observe dipwbyts tantum W bce ff against cima xat piwwOyte 
D sah boh vgAF“* and ciwra repyswoo NB rell d f lq ete. W 
holds gdizwby7s of D but goes with bc e #f in suppressing one 
of the expressions. 
iv. 40. Aeyes W et N° soli gr it” vg [non D dae b] 
tbid. Observe in the clause ts SerAor eote ovTws Tus ouK EyeTe TATU, 
where NBDLA it copt aeth omit ovtws, and substitute ovre 
for ws ovx, W retains ovrws eliminating anything further: 
te Sidor eat outs exeTat tat, while e g omit both and have 
only quid timidi estis habete (habetote q) fidem. 
41. 7 Oadacca Kat o¢ avejor W Sod” be 
bo 7 Garaccu Kat iaena Dad i | Rell av. wav Ban. 
v. 1. yepacnyay NBD iteg FePrYCTHNWN = -W 
2. > avOpwros ex Tay prnpeewr DW Sod 273 2° 604 Sod'*3 
bedefigqrarm goth sah (om ex tev py. syr sir) 
3. > og evyey THY KaTOLKNOW DFW 2° 604 abce 
[At this point W drifts away from D.} 
5. vueros Se xas nuepas (~Kxat Siawavtos init) D it” (sed W 
postea Ssarravtos add.) 
9. Te cot ovopa teoTw D (Sod'***) latt [non W] 
ibid. eatw pot ovopa rey. D 372 (B lati) non W 
15. —tov exynxota tov Xey. D17* 27 late syr sin [non W, sed W 
om antea et caOnpevov (ut A ce e 8) et pmatiopevon (ut 2** gz) | 
16. autre te Sap. (pro tw Say.) D latt {rion W] of ad ver. 15 
; avtov tov Sai. D [non W] 
[At this point W drifts away from e.] 
17. wa ameXOn (pro atrerOetv) D 872 latt et e [non W] 
t18. npfaro wapaxaderv (pro wapexade) Dit” [non W be] 
19. +ore (ante denoev ce) D [non W, om claus e] b ¢ d fz gz (0) 
syr pesh [non copt] 
21. -ev tw trom D Sod™ fam 1 28 47 2°* 604 Sod [non W] 
sed it?™ et e (praeter f d) 
tbid. wpos avtov (pro er avtov) DN Sod fam 13 28 2° 604 
Paris” Sod’ [non W] latt “ad” 
22. Tus (pro es) DW 348 c* e' it vg quidam [non b] quis a? 
(ts ): EPXETAIEIC 
EPXETAITIC 
EPXETAIIC 
ex errore perantiquiss. 


t Tisch is not nearly accurate enough as to 2", I hope Gregory will make this 
rigbt in the next edition. 

} Above, at ver. 17, where all and W have npéaro rapaxadew, D 225 372 2°* 604 Sodd* 
and a have rapexadovr. 


186 


Mark 


ibid. 


[idid. 


v. 23, 


ibid. 


(25. 


CODEX B AND 1TS ALLIES. 


—ovopatslaeipos Dade ff, i, sed W Sod 2° 604 syr sin 
; w ovoua Taetpos pro ovopare lacipos. 

Most curiously D d and e-omit wy avrov; not so W which 
here deserts ¢ exceptionally, but W just before this begins to 
abandon e, and this is emphasised as we proceed. ] 

—modrda D 8** Sodtsttuor(non 0501 bed Ff ilg [non W aef 9,09] 
ede (pro wa edbwv) D [non W] it™ praeter a 8 ayr (of. 157) 
er absque tts NABCLAW late" (contra Dd af rell gr 

syr arm goth et Sod !! ate ‘ 


26 init. n wokAa waGovea D [non W] be afb: ir quae.. 


36. 


37. 


. xarnpato D latt 


(Om. n vel xat NX g) 
—7ap’ DW non fam111 28 68 220 2"* 604 Sod™™4"* latt 
®@ (ra vrapyovta avurns) 
28 267 (ravra ra eavTns) 


—oTt 28 33 372 2° b e et it [non DW df I rell gr] 

I mention this because DW are so tinged with coptic that 
they might have added this xe from coptic, while 28 33 2°* 
follow all the other Latins, headed by 5, and e contradicts W 
here. But vv 27/33 are very involved and impossible to solve. 
Tov tpatiu (pro tev twat) ND 33 it vg boh*"s, 


. TIS Nato TwY ywaTioY pou (pro Tis pov mpi Tov yu.) D it vg 


{non W e reil gr] 
axovaas [non Tapaxovaas] . AD Sod plur minn omn latt 
omn (praeter e) vg copt syr. 
This against NBLA® and W e only, an “ improvement.” 
TrapaxordovOnoat auto D® 2t” sequi se (axodr. avtw 33 Sod) 
auT@ TapaxoXovbnoat (W) fam 1 28 124 2° 604 d ff, g2 gat al. 


TwapaxodovOnce ste tantum W 
avr cuvakorovOnoat E?! Paris”, ef avrw axor. AKT! al. paue. 
ET avToU ouLaKor. NBCLA ¢ goth (syr) 
PET avTOU axod. auT@ boh 
. —xat (post PopuBor) D une’ latt [non W Sod] 
. init. ov Se D 604 it (praeter f) 
. autos be NBCDLA Sod 33 Paris” Hust 48 it 
(praeter e) vg [o 5e We rell gr et Sod**] 
. Tous oxrous eEw Dit (Rell gavtas et W, vel avraytas) 
. Tovs pet avtou +ovtas D it vg (Tous eavtov tantum W 124, — per’) 
. ELEETTOPEVETO D 2” «dé (pro esomopeverat W reil; 
. evorropevortat M 33 273 Paris*’ Sod'* J vg") 
. THY xXElpa D latt 
. OaBira D (latt) - 
. nv Se (pra qv yap) D 179 2” dt og [non wi] 
. moda Da e'* it”! [non W] 


. ouxe eat (sec loco pro Kat ovK) D(a) a?! 


TporKahetapevos D fam 1 2° c it” 





Marx 


ibid. 
ibid. 
vi. 11. 


12. 


26. 
27. 


ibid. 
31. 
32. 


34. 
36. 


37. 
38. 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 187 


amreo rétrey avtous (—np~ato) TD 2?* iz 


Sous D 2? (lait) [e is missing after this] 
—Tov uwoxatw D 33 2°¢ 604 Sod"? it (praeter c) amo tantum 
Paris” 


exnpuccov = d 8 1t°™ vg et W une" et Sb Sod™ minn et Paris”, 
contra exnpvtav NBCL et D™ A™ copt et Sod! Vide v.25, 40. 


. aderfavres D it? 
ibid. 


sanaverunt @ 6 ft q r contra eOeparevov D™ NBW reli gr 

(N.B.—The tenses are so mixed up in verses 12 and 13 
between the Latins and Greeks that the ‘true’? text cannot 
be distinguished. e@epumrevaev 16 hoc loco, vide rel) 


. @ Bartorns DSW Sod 5 fam 13 28 33 56? 57 58? 65 


70 122 237 604 Eust 54 55 it vg sah (pro o Barrier) 


. —podntns ws Dbed fi (a) 

« +xas eBarev D [non W] Sod** fam 13 28 2" 604 a6 d fiir 
. ore D[ non W)28 131179 245 262 273 892 al Sod" cd f frileg 
. quaerebat abcdigqr et C* etre (pro nOeckev NBD* 


W rell gr omn f ffs l vg copt) 


. Observe D®™ xac yevoperns Se (d Et cum dies) sed Sod 255 


2° 604 a bc ff yevoperns Se 


. OTE Dabdfaqvg (But cf some lat and vg 


which begin the verse Et cum dies opportunus for the Greek 
genitive abs., thus already, as it were, having supplied this ore. 
But 6 has: facta autem opp. die and a: die autem opportuno. 


. —evdews DL 1-209 p** 892 iz”! boh (the latter has 


pera otrovéns following, which D a b ci q r omit) 
- This whole verse is most curiously treated by the different 
authorities, showing great basic difficulty. W while having 
evOus eta orovdns plunges into direct oration, omitting ytnoaTo 
Aeyouca or evrev altogether (compare also Sod’). Evan 28 
omits em: mvaxt with 213 ¢ vg4* only (but D d omit in 
Matt. xiv. 8!). 
kat Sia Tous avax. D Sod*" tt (praeter c) vg 
adda (proxatinit.) D 2°* 604 i’™ (praeter b q [hiant e k}) 
syr pesh diatess [Soden places adda in his upper notes or 
margin. The persian omits copula. | 
—o Bactiers DW Sod" fam 1 28 251 2° a 604 syr sin it vg 
euxaipws evyov D i 
Kay avaBavtes ets To TAotoy amndOov es epnuov TaToy KaTidiav 
(pro kat amnnr, es epny. ToT, Tw TAaw Katté.) D it? eta[nonb= 
et abierunt in desert. loc. secreto (— in navi)] e¢ sah (bok NBLA) 
em avtous (pro er avtots) NBDE [non 28] 245 253 Sod’! 4 


it?! vg 
eyyiora D 604itvg proximas (Wet rell gr cuedAw) 
KaL aTTOKp. D it” vg 
Kat reyes Di it? vg (om b) 


53. 
54/55. 


55. 


56. 


« +radkac =D fam 1 28 251 Sod a b dt gp) 
- €v peor Ty Oadacon (pro ev perw THs Oaducons) D 2° it vg 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. KaTa THY cuvTrociay (pro cuumocta cuutocta) Dit? vg (om. asyr 


sin [inaccurate q Sod]) (cvvrocta semel LW al. pauc et Paris”) 


. Karevayte avTwv (pro autos) D it (praeter c) vg 
. beteyepbes D ie" 
. Wpoaye (rpocayev D* Paris”)+avroy D Sod alig it-ng 


verss et Orig. 


(in medio mari [d mare], non maris) (om claus c) 


. Kat €Xauvoytas (pro ev Tw eXauvetv) D 2°* 604 it?! (Soden. — xar) 
. = pos autous  * DW Sod 2" a bed ff, ir (contra rell et 
: verss al.) 


. —yap autoy edov LD Sod"? 2° 604 tt vg 
. pos autous (pro per avrwv) D 33 604 Paris (autos 2°*) 


acdf f,iqr (illis b) Om. Sod* 


. Observe how in the following verse, where Xav is omitted by 


DW Sod 1 28 604 [non 2°*], b has only abundantius for Acav 
ex tepisoov. The O.L. have plus magis or magis plus (c), but 
this can very well equal ex sepiocou (or wepiaaws as D 2”, 
mepicaos 604, exmeptccws 1) without Xvav. b appears very basic 
here and W agrees, which ms has not been with D regularly 
for some time. 


Scatrepacavres + exerBev D ier 

eveyvwcay ... Teptdpapovres Se (vel xa wepidp.) [ pro exvyvovres 
«. -tepredpapor | : D 2” 604 t¢ vg (®) 

depety (pro mepipeper) DM Sod* 1 2° cf 604 Sod? *% ig! 


+repipepov yap avtous orev av neoveav TD c* izPt 
TAateats (pro aryopats) D 2° 604 latt 


(vil. 2 fin. xateyrwoay D, al. eveurpavro, it (praeter b) vituparaverunt. 


vi. 4. 
(ibid. 
6. 


ibid. 


ibid. 


Observe 6 omits with NB ete etc.) - 

+oray NMoow . DW c™ latt 

+avrois (ante pare) D [non W] tt” vg [non b e]) 

wat etrev (pro ws yeypamtat) D di (604c ff, dicens) et ws exrey 
1 2°* cs ecrrev Sod” vid cum a b qui dixit (conflate syr sin) 

ameote (pro ameyet) Li Sod 2°° ClemBom et Alex Jatt et A (male 

Sod Z) aweatn (D™ adeornxev, a corruption of amecrn for 

ateott, and a comparatively late one, for even a has est, as 

d opposite D*. For ameye: W has eye.) 


. stnontae DW Sod™ fam 1 28 2° (Cronin) it syr sin (pro 


THPNTHTE) 


. +17 pwpa (post ty wapadoce: vpov) Dit 
+ Tov wapaBodny (pro wept rns TapaBorys) NBDLA 33 Paris” it vg 
. es THY Kapstav avTov (pro avtou es THY Kapdiav) DA 265 latt 


[auroy es tqv Siavoray W; —avtov 238 245 alm] S 
ets Tov oxeTov (pro eis Tov adedpwva) D (it vg communiter in 
secessum) Cf. syr.sin. 


Mark 
{ vii. 20. 
tibid 
22. 


24. 
25. 


29. 


30. 
31. 


11. 


14. 


LATIN BASE IN ST, MARK. 189 


As exetva follows in 
D* it shows that d 
is more consistent 
than D. 


quae. .exeunt (pro To. . extropevopevov) 
it vg et d [non D®] 
. exeiva (pro exevo) D it vg 


mreovefia DW 28 latt syrr 

—xat odavos DLWA Sod’ 28 2°¢ it”! Orig’® syr sin 

to Ouyatpiov (—autns) NDWA Sod 1 13 28 179 273 2° a** 
604 al” e¢ Sod** Latt non expr. 

>utaye Sa tovrov (tov om. D) Aoyov D fam 1 2°* 604 

Sod)38 C4) {i syr pesh 

ets Tov (om. D) orxov (—avtns) DW 1 28 Sod! b fring 

nrbev Sia aidoves (pro xat cidwvos nrOsv) NBDLA Sod™°33 2° 

604 latt boh et Sod! (vide vii. 17 contra hos). (Om odwvos 

Paris®’) 

. Tapexadovv (pro mapaxadoveww) W" 33 d et latt (contra D® 

rell gr) syr (et wapexureoay copt aeth) 


. ev exervats +$¢ DW Sod vid 28 604 22! goth syr sah 


. nec haberent Iat?, but @ et non habentibus eis and DW Sod 
2°* 604 Kat py eyovrwv auTwr. 


. emt Tov oxdov +rovrev  —_D (late) (of. Li Sod'°™4483 Tanrad ™) 


. KQL aTroAVeaL avTOUS VHETELS ELS oLKOY (OM ELS OLxOY Sod 2 QPe 
GOL b) ov Oedw py (untote 2) exrAvOwaw ev Ty 08w [pro Kat cav 
(om eav FE 157) arrodvew avtous vnoress (+ ews W) ets otxoy avtwy 
exdvOncovrat ev Ty 0dw| D 2° 604 a b fini gr, sed cf. Matt] 
cuvénrew avy avtw DD it vg “cong. cum eo” (d omits as do 
A & but only because of the quaerentés ab illo immediately 
succeeding). Coptic expresses this cv but not W. 

A very interesting place. Ordinary text: «at es un eva aptov 
ove evyov ysO cavTtww ev tw AO. This double Greek negative 
is generally understood to mean that they had in the boat a 
loaf, but only one. Syr sin alone read it: ‘for not one loaf 
was there with them in the boat.” W understood it quite 
the other way, reading, exceptionally with 28 2°¢ 604 (fam 1 
13), eva povoy exovtes aptov peO ervt.ev to wr. (Cf. Sod? 2"), 
D and the Latins follow suit, omitting ovx, but not having the 
participial eyovres of W. I call attention to the matter at this 
place because the Latins are not only agreed, but some: bc d 
tt q 7 supply quem as if reading APTON ON, which D does 
not, so that this may be basic and the ON have dropped out of 
Greek after aptov. If so these Latins all precede the Greek. 
The other explanation would be that ON crept into the 
Greek, but no codex seems to exhibit it. 


16. —deyovtes NBDW fam 1 28 2 604 [non Sod") it” sak 





+ This is a very curious place, for al] Greeks syr and copt seem agreed as to the 


singular. 


190 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Mark ; 
viii. 17. eotw or eat for eyete sec. D Sod’? 2° latt (except f gal vg), 


syr copt [non exere expr poss] 
19. —mdnpers ” fam 13 237 259 h** Paris” @ bo d (contra D*) 
Rrhikar 

20, rocas opupiSas Kracpatar. D (Sod 2° 604) late? 

"24, ws Sevdpa meperatouvtas (~ et orcet opw) DCM? W. Sod™ fam 1 
al%++ lat®™ contra NBC*ALM*NXTAIIZ® unc® minn™ goth. 
Yet the minority have the shorter text with all the versions 
but goth. Of course coptic introduces with xe but this comes 
before Prerw, and opw is absent as in arm aeth and syr as well. 
Does this place really mean that DW Jatt derive from one. 
stem, while NB and all the rest from another? Or is it a 
chance place where opw appeared redundant to all Latins 
Copis Armenians Syrians and Aethiopians but only to DWC?M? 
of Greeks? That would be very curious. Examine the 
cursives. 

25. This is followed immediately by a most unusual little place. 
D begins the verse cae wav and d with b ct fatkqr aeth syr 
sin: Et iterum. The other Greeks have evra vadwv and @ has 
deinceps ( —iterum), the other few Latins and vg = deinde iterum. 
In a bilingual, like our Latin b the place would appear thus: 

EITANAAINEIT ETITERVM IM 
E€@HKENTACXEIP*S = POSVITMANVS: 
ENITOYCOPEAAMOYC SVPEROCVLOS 

From this it would thus appear that e1Ta and eT might be confounded. 
Thus we are getting closer to the cardinal point. Did Greek get era 
from confusion of eye as to the Latin eT before ITeRVM or did Latin get 
€T from confusion of eye as to Greek eva? At first sight it looks more 
like a Greek overflow on to the Latin, but our previous training in the 
history of these matters urges us to walk warily. And first notice that 
D obtains his «ae (alone of Greeks) from his Latin d. Which is earlier, 
. Latin or Greek? True, coptic goes with the Greek, bohairic reading . 
iva. on, and sahidic marin om but in sah observe «a: and eta are 
omitted as in syr pesh 202. But how does syr sin stand? Syr sin adds 
the «at thus sake = et iterum, but ->04 in syriac also stands for Deinceps 
as well as Itéerum. 

Secondly, observe that our training as to the witness @ proves to be 
sound, a is quite independent of the other Latins. In this case, instead 
of Deinde iterum of vg f 1, a writes Deinceps alone, agreeing practically 
with syr pesh arm and sah. . 

The explanation of. a. syriac base where Deinceps and I terum may be 
considered interchangeable I think is perhaps beside the mark here, for in 
St. Mark our choice of base seems to lie between the Latin and the 
Greek. But as to the age of the readings syr sin comes in as a witness 
' to show that the xae initio was present when he copied his Ms. The 














t All these Have et iterum except c exceptionally et rursus. 


diatess ar 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 191 


rab also has the «ac: “And he placed his hand again on his 


eyes,” placing téerem later as in aeth. : 
I must leave my readers to judge this place in the light of all the other 


collateral 


evidence in other passages, observing only that while b d k remain 


together here, which is always significant, (+c f2 ¢ g 7), W® goes with the 


other Gre 


eks for evra, but W after chapter v. presents quite a mixed text. 


Observe at the end of the same verse that D ié: wore avaBreyar are 
@ unit against all the rest. 


Mark 
viti, 25 


26, 
27, 


34. 


16. 


ibid. 


19 


20. 


. wate avaSretrar Ditvg (Rell aliter sed variant plurimum 
inter se) 
Cf Latin treatment here (except ¢ *) and the rest. 
>evat o¢ avOpwros D a f l gq vg Tert Ambr. (¢ me esse 
dicunt hom.) 
~avros DAXW it”. I place this here although Orig and 
Orig (with f lq vg) oppose, because A supports D, and W 
now comes in to support X, a thoroughly graeco-latin tribe 
DAXW. Mr. Sanders does not group it in his list of select 
readings of W (see his p. 74), but it has some importance. 
(Sod ™8 exrev a Ka.) 
.os8 av D (prooa yap av) bed f,ik qr (oc av Sod!) 
. avaryet DW! 2”, ducit d ff, k**? il q et & super A™ avadgeper, 
duxit abe fg vg, du...r [avapepes NB rell ef WE 
rell gr; insefuit k] 
. nrOev (pro eyeveto sec.) D al. it’™ vg (praeter 5) 
. OTAV eK vexpwy uvactn (pro TO Ex vEexp.avactnvat) DW fam 1 
f (fam 18) it! vg 
. > wpwtov edOev D it”! aeth 
. (pr. loco) pos avtous (pro mept avtous) D 12”! ad eos (k aput - 
eos, g cum illis) (syr). [Sole fd g vg circa eos]. 
autous (pro Tous ypap.) XBDLWA 1. 28 2° 12" (exc. a) 
syr sin, 
ev usw (pro mpos avtovs) Dit". (Variant rell.) 
intt. Kat (pro o de) DW Sod min alig it?! boh aeth 
— pos avtov D it”! og 


ibid. puerum (proavtov quart.) tt”! et Sod fam 13 [non 124] 28 a 


22 


ibid, 


ibid 


(et sak Mpwsaxe = Tov avOpwrov) [non Dd flvg; om W] 
. Kas sec. DIW Sod™ ovin alig it?! et copt syr 
[contra morem graec. Kai ets Tup...xat es vdara] 
avrov post Toddakts ACDNAITI unc? et WIM it vg 
[contra NBC*LAY a] 
. Barret (vel eBarev) post vdata =D it” og 


23. Habent morevoat Gr pi et it” vg 


24 


25. 
26. 


. > 17 aTioTia pou D late" 
Kat ote evdev D latt 
+am avtov D(A) h** [ron 2° Cron. male vid Sod} 


Sod 8 tt vg sy 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. 83. xapapvaovn NBDAWY it vg copt syr (xareppapvaovp Sod?) 
. deyet fam, ait it” vg et d contra D®,6 contra A* [Sod negl. lat] 
. ev Tw ov. (proemt) DW 69 73 247 Sod Evst 44 latt in nomine 
. ait (pro ecier) it” et d contra D* et 8 contra A™ [non fi k] 

. —Taxy F*w joe 1 Sod'* 28 2°¢ it! et d [contra D*] 


syr sin arm 


. Tepiexetto (pro magica: DW . ¢f. latt 

. > ews Thy Oar, eBrnOn D late . 

. fF atovroy D ie” 

. mepay tantum - DGA et W Sod min®™ it vg 


(variant inter se al.) 


. TUVEPYETAL TAAL o OYAOS D Sod" (213 2”) ct! Cf. W 28 al. 
. —Upy DW fam 13 28 349 alt be dg, kr a? 
. evOeu. , Kat DW) it™""* syr 

. Om apas Tov cravpov NBCDAY Sod™ % Qve 4t”! ug 

. €oTUyvacer .. Kat D igm" syr 

. TOUT Tw AOYO D Sod fam 13 2° ie" syr 


Cf ord. Dabd fi 


. —7 yovaxa NBDAW Sod™ it” Clem Orig* [Habet ¥ cum rell] 


30 init. qui (pro eav) Latt (praeter k et non) et D® 


37., 


39. 


41. 

43. 
ibid. 
[49. 


abid. 
ibid. 
“32. 


os av, os ob Sod 28 [non W] 2°° 604 goth aeth. . 
—cov sec. , _ BDAWW) Sod" 1 2° Sod™*? at?! 
—auTw DW Sod vid 1 28 2°* 604 al® Sod*"" 
; et [txt] it” boh pers 
ot (-+Aarmrot) Sexa D Sod a bed ff, ig boh” syr"* 
—ée DW Sod 2v° Sod'**" it?! syr sin diatess sah 
(pr loco) ear (pro eorat) NBC*DLAWY Sod™ iz”! vg copt 
ot d€ Aeyovew Tw TUdrw {pro Kat dwvovew Tov TYpdoy Aeyovtes 
avres) D 2”) abd frig) 


. wypyetev (pro wpyyfovew) Dit (praeter a) (myytcev 18 Sod) 
. «es PnOpayn D 604 it” Orig 1/2 sed contra 1/2 

. —eS aut D ig™"* sah"* aeth 

. ~auTas D Sod** ct" 

. Ea TPwYYvOY DW Sod fam 1 [non 118] al.a be @ frtk 


13. (Cf D latt) 


» AnurypeoOe D Sod*** 1 2°" 604 Sod" latt Cypr 
. epyerat DX 2°¢ Sod? iz?! 
. +t evroper (ante cav ecrapev) Dd Sod™ fam 18 28 [non W 


= ort cay evraper] 2°° 604. ab cd fe i (Kk) x et Sod [txt] 
+npuy (post epec [Neyer D® b1]) DMW Sod?™ J 13 2°° 604 Sod'8** 
it?! syr 
—ovy AC*LMSXA al. ef WY it”! et d [contra D™] 
goBoupeba -D (foBouperv D*) NW2(¥ ?) Sod? al. it”! vg 





+ Tisch and Horner neglect to mention 2%, As W joins 28 for this Latin omission 
+ syr sin it shows that it is very old. : 











37. 

40. 

ibid. 

ibid. 

42. 

ibid. 

T 43. 

(xiii. 1 fin, 
(2, 


2 fin. 


31, 


35. 


LATIN BASE IN ST. MARK. 193 


. nSerccav (pro eryov) DW Sod" 2° (o8aer 604) it arm 
. wove (pro raBn) Dit 


. mexetvot D ie 
. eure ouy nyt et CDMNWE®i al. it™ 
—dwpev 7 wn Spey D i) 
. venerunt b it” [sed d & veniunt cum D* rell gr] 
. exn (pro xatadkumn) DW 28 (604) it” syr sin (ef. Lue xx. 27) 
. areBaver xat (pro arrobynoxev) DW 1 28 (2°") 604 al. it vg 
syr copt 
. —wavtwy vel tacov DW Sod 2° al. pauc. it” syr sin 
. uno troétov N plur Sod et latt (contra BDFI"WW 28 
Sod" uroxatw) 
>qdews avtou nx. Dbd f,ilr vg 
ot katecOcoverv (pro ot kazecBiovres) D fam lit vg (ef syr copt) 
+ Kav oppavev DW fam13 28 2% a bed figriqr syr 
hier [non ek] Male Sod de latt. 
~—Kat (ante mpopacet) OD it (praeter e) ug 
efovea be D Sod™ 2° 604 it vg boh” sah Orig 
—TreXY D Sod 416 ope jgpl 
— tev Baddovrev W fam 113 [non fam] 28 248 Sod'3 142 


it (non ad Kk] syr sin 
+7ou tepov CT it") 
aytots (proavtw) D Sod'**! it”! sah"™ et Brerere D ith, 
Cf Matt) 
+xat Sia tprwv nyuepwv arrays avarrycetat avev xetpwv Det W 
[non 2°¢} it omn et e k Cypr (praeter lg vg) 


. -ecovtas sec. DW Sod 213 2Ӣ 604 Sod!93 415 443 Gt vg syr sin 
. Ortyrers ovat ove eyevovTo Toravras D(P)115 2P*299 Sodr703 178 


latt. 
—ns (vel nv) exticev 0 Geos =D Sod 27 265 2°" Sacdtoss 1443 geet 
Tou uncou pro autou prim. (lect. neg?. Sod] =D it" 


. anny {(—de) ACFHMUWKX Sod™ al. it (praeter a) 
. Aeyer (pro etsrev) DW Sod* 2°¢ 604 Paris™ latt 
. Aeyet (pro edn) DY Sod iz”! vg 


(amoxp. Aeyee W113 2°* 604 Sod) 

€Xarer XBDLY7? 892 Paris” it?! loquebatur (Rell 
edeye) 

TpoehOay NB al. Sod®® et it et d contra D™ plur wpoceAOwy 


86 fin, +Ocres D Sad Qe ge?! ngih 


47. 
50. 
53. 





Kat ets W bcd ff, k qr syr sin (D™ wae Ts) 

>ravres epuyov DW Sod™ plur latt sah [contra boh NRBCLAYV] 

— avTo NDLAW Sod" fanz 13 [non 124] 2°* 604 Sod? 
itvg Cf pers 





+ Tisch omits to record 28. We see that W supports 29 here against D. Only ak 
of Latins follow D. 


° 


194 CODEX B AND iTS ALLIES. 


xiv. 54. xaOnwevos (pro cvvxa.) D it (praeter k) vg 
68. Habent xat adextwp efwvncev D gr plur et latt omn (praeter c) 
72. «at nptato chase D Sod** 2" it vg et & [contra A 


kat erihaBwv exdatev] 
xv. 1. arqyayov (pro amnveyxav) CDGNW al. et latt (quos vide) 


11. erewav (pro averecav) ~ D 2” 42™ (praeter 1) sed hiant 
be fig (exomcav Sod) 
12; —ov Aeyere DAW Sod alig 2°* 604 et Sod'*" latt 
19. ervmrov avtov xan. ets thy xed. D 2°* latt sah 
, 23. Kat ovK eraBev D fam 1 late™ 
29, ot wapayovres (pro ot tapamropevopevar) D latt (mpoayorres 2°*) 
38. evs duo pepy Dive ; 
40. Habent nv Gr plur et it™ [contra NBL minn™® et vg 1/2 
W-H Sod} 


44. 8 (pro mada in secloco) BDW c*™ Sod ? jatt jam...jam 
46 init. o Se wond (pro cat) DE Sod pauc gr. lati 


xvi. 1. —edOovoar D it" (sed W erred Bovcai) 
3. >T1s nw atroxunr. D 2° ¢¢ ; 
4, amroxexudtopevov D Sod 2P¢ ¢¢ (revolutum et » amotum) 


Novte.—Soden is very obscure in Mark as to W and°*. He merely 
uses a small fas a rule to indicate these “followers” of D. When the 
above list was compiled I was not in possession of the new edition of 
Sod, I have since received it and done what I could to add this witness 
properly, and remedy my previous unsatisfactory study of von Soden. 


P.S.—As to the historic presents in St. Mark referred to on pp. 101 
seq. of this essay, refer to Sir John Hawkins’ Horae Syn. p. 213/214, and 
observe what he says of the exceptional use of the historic present 
151 times by the special translator of 1 Kings in the Septuagint. On 
p. 214 he sums up thus: 

“In proportion to the comparative length of their works, no one of 
the many translators or writers of the L.XX equals Mark in the frequency 
of this usage, though the translator of 1 Kingdoms is not very far distant 
from him. On the whole then it remains a notable characteristic of 
Mark, though not so exclusively as was claimed in the first edition of 
this book.” 

On p. 144 seg. may be seen Sir John’s lists of historic presents in 
Mark where Aeyet (ait) occurs very frequently. Have we sufficiently 
considered the frequent use of epyerac in Mark for »AGev of the synoptists, 


perhaps growing out of the work of a@ translator from the indeterminate 
Latin ran. 





CHAPTER VII. 


CONCERNING THE GREEK OF D AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE 
FATHERS In St. Mark. 


“ But if this be true for a single one of the errors examined, we are obliged to admit 
that a Latin translation of the Gospels already existed in Tatian's time, and, that being 
so, we conclude further that the text which Tatian employed was either an early Latin 
text or the Greek of an early bilingual text. The two hypotheses are not so very far 
apart; and either can be supported from the phenomena exhibited by the variants of 
Tatian’s text; upon the whole, I incline to think that a Latin text was employed.”— 
Rendel Harris, ‘Codex Bezae,’ p. 176/7. 

“ But scholars are only yet on the threshold of these enquiries, and immediate 
resulta are not to be anticipated. Over-hasty hypotheses and premature generalizations 
will not help in the end: it is to the accumulation of new material, like our Latin 
Clement, and to the patient questioning and cross-questioning of the whole body of 
witnesses, singly and together, that we must look for real advance.” (C. H. Turner: 
St. Clement’s Epistle {tn re the Latin version] and the Early Roman Church, p. 249 in 
‘ Studies in Early Church History’: Oxford, 1912.) 


(1) As to the Greek of D. 


Another thing which we may observe in the Greek of D (which is 
certainly later than the Latin of d) is that among the harmonies which we 
notice in D with the Greek of Matthew or Luke the points are frequently 
confined to their words, and the process is not so much of tbe nature of 
borrowing phrases as of consulting the synoptic Greek for assistance 
when translating the Latin of Mark into Greek. Thus observe in the 
following instances words substituted, not phrases, as at: 


Mark 
vii. 19. evoepyerac et eEepyerut (pro esorropevetac et exmop.) D* sol (cf 


Maté) 
x, 46. ewattev (pro tpocattwy vel rporaitys) D® 2" Sod" Orig 
(ef Luce) 
xiii. 84. avoSnper (pro arrosnuos) DX Sod™ pauc (ut Matt xxv 14) 
xiv. 44, edwoxey D* sol = Matt xxvi. 48, while d and Jatt” = dederat 
in Mark as SeSwxec the other Greeks, but ac & retranslating 
the Greek of D = dedit [Sod be8uxev]. 
ibid. enpeov D*3 Sod pauc (pro svaonyov) (ut Matt) 
64. Sexes (pro datverat) D* Sod, and N= [hiat P] 28 [but 
not W] 2° [but not 604] Sod!" = Matt xxvi. 66 
xv. 10. de (pro eyiwwoxev) Dw Sod 1 13 2°* Sod? = 
Matt xxvii. 18 
Observe in this same verse the reference of D is direct, for 
he takes Matthew's wopeduxay, against his d@ = tradidissent 
02 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


(rapadeSwxeccav Gr. plur) which said rapedwxav a rerenders 
tradiderunt. 


. erercay (pro aveceioar) D (Sod) 2% = ut Matt. xxvii. 20 
. exeteacw (pro wepitOeacw) D et latt (praeter k superpo- 


nunt) of Matt Jo eweOnxav, 


. WAnoas (pro yemsras) DSod®°2604 Sod? of Matt xxvii.47 
. eacavto (pro eewpovv) D Sod 2 of Lue xxiii. 55 


(2) As to independence of D. 


- The above are interesting samples, because D has other perfect 


independence in translation as at: 
* Gi, 21. emeavvpartes D*® sol (ertouvarrres W) pro emtparrre: (adguit) 


iv 


xiv. 
Xv. 


16. 


adepes D* sol (apwate. NCA ut Mat) pro ape [et 
. Luc] (aufert vel tollit) 
(N.B.—Here it is NCA which borrow from Matthew). 


. amretas (pro epxetas vel eacerat)  D* sol 

. Stayyetkov =D W 1 13 28 604 (pro az- vel av-ayyetdov rell) 

. €7L TO XElpov (pro ets To yELpor) D*™ Sod? 2° 604 

. eyyrota (pro xcuxdrw rell omn gr) D* sol cum 604 (ut proxi- 


mas lati™") 


. Thpew (pro Kpatev) D* sol 

. erapakev (pro exnapater vel cuvverrrapakev) D™ sol 

. Tradapea (pro mati) D* sol (d pueros) 

. arnOeas (pro ovTes) . D* sol [Male Sod de 8] (Latt vere) 

. ewtxehadatoy (pra knvaov) D® Sod 124 2° k (et Soden) 

. yetvwoxovtes (pro edores) D* Orig 

. KabeCopevos (pro xabtcas) D* sot 

. OopuBerabe (pro OpoeaBe) D® pauc. [but Opoecbe also 
“Matt xxiv. 6] 

. ecevya (pro cowmTra) D® sot 

. Kadouew (pro cuveadovaw) D* sol [contra d convocaverunt] 

. ayoucw (pro depovaw) - D® 13 2° (latt perdux. addux. 


et c duxerunt) In Matt edOovres (Aliter Luc Jo) 


. 06 Taparyovtes (pro ot wapatopevoyevort) D (2°* ampoayovrtes 


nec mutat Cronin, sed tap ??) 


. ehwrngerv (pro eBonoen vel ave8.) D sol 
. Tapa (pro ato) DW Sod 1 124 2° Sod" 


(8) Concerning W and e; concerning the Fathers. 


Suppose that we did not own ¢. Then the first five chapters in 
St. Mark as represented by W would be absolutely unintelligible to us. 
We would simply think we had got hold of a new Greek recension of 





t Tisch does not mention 2° (notaverunt ¢ d ff, 9): Cf also Mark xvi. 11 «beady. 





D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 197 


Egypt which had somehow influenced b and ¢ in Europe. Instead of 
this, by the help of e we see another state of things altogether, and find 
that b ¢ e were the influences on W. St. Mark's Gospel is the dark and 
difficult spot in textual criticism. The early quotations from it are 
exceedingly few, and instead of St. Mark standing out as the paramount 
and fundamental text used by the ancients before Origen, we find St. 
Matthew and St. Luke occupy this position in the sub-apostolic 
quotations. Did St. Mark’s Gospel then remain only the European 
standard for one hundred years? Was it in Latin until it reached 
Alexandria via Carthage, or did it reach Alexandria directly in Latin or 
Graeco-Latin? These are the questions which may well exercise us. 
The early Greek quotations are very meagre. I subjoin a few for 
comparison.f The long one from Cons¢**!, combining Luke xii. 35 





t Mark i. 15. peravoeire eyyme yap 4 Bamidera tov avpavev.—Consti- 


ii, 20. Neyer yap mov o Kupms meptcavrov hagcav orav amapOn am avTav o 
(Luke v. 85). vupquos vycrevoavow ev execvais ras npepars.—Const™ 8 
a.p,278 Quid enim ait sermo divinus ? Quis enim potest introire in domum 
Mark iii. 27. fortis et diripere vasa ejus nisi illo sit fortior ? oa 
—'S. Archel Caschar in Mesop. Epise.’ Galland 
a.D. 254 Denique cum conversarentur in Galilaea, dixit eis Jesus Incipit filius 
Mark ix. 30. hominis tradi in manus hominum et_interficient_ eum et post triduum 
resurget.—‘ Anon. Lib. de Rebapt.’ Galland**7 
» xili, 35. mavta ra rpooteraypeva vpw vio tov xupiou udaéare ypyyopere omep 
Luke xii. 85. rys (wns vor. Eorwoav at oog¢ves vyov repelwopernt xat or Avyvor 
Katqpevor Kat vpers oporcr avOpwtrois mpogdexapevoss Tov Kuptoy cavrwy wore 














née eon mpat adexropodwras 9 pegovuxtiov’y yap wpa av 

















mpogSoxwaw eAevoeTat o KUptos Kat env avTa avofoot paxapror 04 SovdAce 
LEOUSORGOIN ENEVOETEL BURUPIOS Rit sav puta avolgen’ paxdpiot ot Counce 
exewcs ore evpeOnoav ypyyopourres ore mepiCwoerat Kat avaxdtwet avrous 
il bese Rio Alas nh a An alt Rn nal heed ii ds ote ak 
xa rapeAGwy Biaxovnoes avros * unbere ovy Kas mpocevyerbe wn vrveca 


ets Oavurov. ..—Const*ti 31 
Although a merger of Mark and Luke, the double underlined 
words = distinctly Mark. 


t. xxviii, 1 
ve 1 seaxae ope caBSarav we o MarOaos ee * eat Mpaoras ert oKoTias ovens 
m XX. 
2 ws. 0 Iwanys ypadet* car opOpov Badeos ws o Aovkas* kat Atay mpwe 


Luke xxiv. 1 
Mark xvi. 2) avarethavros Tov mAios Kat o Mupxos.—Dionsex tras. Gail 3.508 


Matt. xxviii 1/6 ro uo tov Mar@mov Ae\xGev ovras exer.. cows o lwavyns...o 8@ Aovaas 
Jo, xx. 1 Pyet...tovte xaraxodovder kat o Mapxos Aeywr * nyopagay appara wa 
Luke xxiii. 56 eA@ovorae adenpwow avrov xa Acav mpar tos pias caBBarev epxovrat ere 
Mark xvi. 1, 2,6. to pvqpenv avareduvros tov qAwov * diay pev yap Tpwt Kat ovTos ecrev omep 
Tavtov eats Tw Babeos opbpov xa exqyayey avareidavros rou nAwv... 

nyepOn ove eotw wd_e—Dion ibid. 
xii. 24. Sia _rovro rAavacte un eBores ra adnOn rav ypapwy Tov ewvexev ayvoere 
Thy uray tou Geov (Mark xii. 24). Pergens « 3¢ ta akyOn tov ypuhav 


ayvoew aureus umeBadrev Snrov ws ovrav Yevdwv * ada xat ev ro gyvat 











198 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 

and Mark xii. 35, is interesting as introducing eowepas for ove in Mark. 
The Latins ¢ and & both have vespera (for sero of the rest). Did this 
Latin influence Const, or did the Greek of Const (appearing nowhere else) 
influence e-and k? Even W has ope, so has D, and d= sero. So that 
e k Const stand apart here from both the DW tradition and the XB ell 
.Tecension. - 


Again Dion" gives us the usual text of Mark: 
Mark : : 
“xvi. 1. nyopacay apwpata wa erXGovaat arenfwou avrov, but De d ff 


kn (haat a) q (hiat b) omit eAfoveas,—(W has ever Povaat),— 
so that the two recensions Alexandrine and European remain 
“quite different to the last. 


Clem**, 


A matter of considerable moment occurs at Mark x. 22 which may 
help.us. Of course Clement is a free quoter, but here the quotation is 
quite certainly from St. Mark (ravra pev ev tw kata Mapxov evaryedrcw 
yeypamrrat) for Clem begins o Se otvyvacas emt tw Xoyw arn re AvTTOUpEVO:. 








ywearde rparefiras Soxiuot, ws Soxipov cae x 3dprov Aoyor ovrav ras To. 
ecrew * Stars ov voetre To evAoyov tav ypadov,,.—Clem Homili 


Mark xii. 29. ws ae ypapa Neyousw epy axove Iapa7A Kupios o Geos vawy Kupios es 
eorw (Mark xii. 29).—Clem Homiil, This occurs on the next page to 
the foregoing, and probably both are from Mark. 

_ Fo. iii. 5. Neyer yap o Kupios cav yy tes BarricOn e€ vduros Kat _mvevmaros ov pn 
Mark xvi. 16 ecoeA6n es ry PaorXreav tov oupavey Kat TaAty 0 maTtevoas Kat Barris bes 
uwOnoerat o 8¢€ amarngas KataxpSnoerat,—Const™ B 








xvi. 17/18. rov Geov-xat warnpos npav Ii Xpu...xadws avros mov now. ..gnow 
nwaow apa...onuea 8 ros morevoagw tavra mapaxoAdovénce ‘ey TH 
ovopare pov Satpoma exBadovar* yAwooas cavais Nadnoovew * oes apoves 

= kav Ouvacinov tt rewaw ov pn avrovs BAawes* ext appworuus xXeipas 


emOnoover Kat xaos eovar.—Hipp*| de charism, et Consévii.1 





Mark viii. 31 or ...¢80a yap mpo ruv cravpwOqvar* See rov wov tov avov wodda nadew 
Luke xii. 22 xat_aroboxipacGqvat vro rev ypaupateav Kat papiraav Kar oravpabyvae 





kat TH TPIT NuEpa avaatnva.—Justintsn i 


De novo xat ev rots Aoyots avrov echn ore wept Tov Tacxew avroy 
perdew dceAeyero ort Bes Tov vioy Tov avov mwodAa mabew Kat amodoxipac- 


o . Onvat ura Tay papcoaar Kai ypapparewy wat oravpwOnva kat ™m Tpit 
. * pepa_avagryvat.—ITustint 10 (CF Iren) a 
_ In both Mark and Luke amuxravéqvai is used for cravpwéqva of 
Justin. 
Mark xiii. 22 «me yag...(follows Matt. vii. 15, 1 Cor. xi. 18, Matt. vii. 15)...cae 
" Matt. xxiv. 11 avaorgcorra odd Wevdoxptcro: cat yeudoarocrodot Kat modus tor 
mioTev ‘mrAaynoovew, .~ 
Neither in Mark nor Matt. is iuemenne: used. 


D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARE. 199 


Already we have had indications in Clem of a lost Greek base or of a Latin 
original in v. 34 ameA@e ets etpnyny for virarye (sopevov some) ets etpyyny. 
Now we come toa much more important point. St. Mark is careful to 
distinguish between xtnuata moda (that which the young man possessed) 
in x. 22, and of ra ypyyara éyovres (generally speaking of others) in x. 23. 
The Greeks are agreed here, except D wodia ypnuara and 116 xonuata 
moda in ver, 22, but I shall give reasons for thinking that D d do not 
preserve here the original text, but rather that b & have it. Further 
observe that 2" and 604 do not coincide with D here as they so often do, 
and D is left alone with one cursive 116 about which we hear nothing 
much elsewhere, so that the change from «rnwata to yonuata was 
probably arbitrary. Now in verse 22 for xryata modda b says multas 
pecunias ET AGROS and & has mudtae divitias ET aAGROS and Clement = 
xXpnwata TohAa KaLaypouvs. This, as Barnard points out, is without other 
Greek support. The point to notice first is that Clement has ypyyata for 
atTnprta, but he adds «as aypovs coinciding with } & of the Latins. 

(f2 [Buchanan] has a kind of conflation of xrmata and ypyuata 
writing multas possetsionis et pecunias.) 

This passage would not mean so much to us if we had not previously 
had the illurninating exhibition of the first quire of Mark in the ms W, 
which provides us with a completely graecised text of the Latin conjunc- 
tion 6 ¢ in Marki.-v. From vi. 9-xii. 37 ¢ is missing, but is replaced by 
k from viii. 8 onwards, so that the combination } k takes the place of 
that of b ¢ in the earlier chapters. Now these combinations 6 e and 6 k 
point to the old European-African common base of the original Latin in 
St. Mark. And I have stated elsewhere that } is probably an older form 
of the d text. We know how largely in other Gospels Clement is 
indebted to the D or “ western” text whether alone or in combination, 
so that here when he agrees with 0 it is no accident, and when & confirms 
b, it links up Italy, Carthage and Alexandria. 

We are now at last squarely up against this proposition. Did b and 
& get this reading from translating xtmyara modda so as to give the sense 
as opposed to ypnyara, or did Clement derive his Greek ypnpata woAda 
«at aypous from the Latin of 6 &? Or are both due to a more ancient 
foundation, Greek, or graeco-latin going behind Clement? To ascertain 
this, or to try to ascertain it, we must enquire what the other Greeks and 
Latins do. 

NBW then and all Greeks (but D) are agreed as to xtnata modda 
which can be a Greek rendering of multas pecunias et agros, jast as well 
as the latter can be a proper translation of «tyyata woAka. But the fact 
that Clement says yenparta vodka kat aypous lends force to something 
earlier than the Greek of NBW etc. ¢ 





+ This does not prevent Clem when quoting freely in verse 29 from employing xa, 
Xpnpura to cover 4 aypaus. 


200 . CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


As to the other Latins, f q by divitias mulias may be translating 
aTnpata Toda OF Xpyuata TodXa, but probably the former. 

c& al. and vg “ possessiones multas”’ or “‘ multas possessiones ” clearly 
point to xryyata moAAa. a@ = magnam pecuniam, and is rather beside the 
mark. Horner’s note in sah is inadequate, and Tischendorf, as Barnard 

_ points out, does not properly represent Clement at all. [Soden also 
neglects Clem.] 

But it may be regarded as certain that «rnuata moda is the settled 
Greek text from 350 a.D. onwards. Why then should we pay so much 
attention to Clement b and k? For the reason that W in the earlier 
chapters of St. Mark shows us an entirely different Greek recension from 
any other, apparently based upon 6 e [Clementine quotations here are 
absent] and so, when we meet later the conjunction 4 & supported by 
Clement’s Greek—and that after W has drifted away to a more conven- 
tional Greek text after chapter v.—we are forced to consider it much 
more particularly than we should otherwise have done. 

To return to D. Here we find voAAa@ ypnpata without xa tovs aypous. 
The order doubtless due to that of d : ‘‘ multas pecunias.” Now observe 
that the wording of d is the same: “ multas pecunias ”’ (differing from the 
wording of all others [Tisch is wrong as to #f2]). He (b) merely adds 
“et agros.”” Is this a conflation? No. There is nothing to conflate. 
Is it & gratuitous addition? No. For the sense calls for it. It seems 
therefore as if d were the culprit who suppressed “ et agros” thinking it 
‘an unnecessary amplification. If he did not do this, how then did all 
the rest get «rnuata instead of ypnpata? And how is it that Clem while 
having ypqyata of D 6b d yet supplies «as aypous with 8 k? 

We are forced to the conclusion that Clem b k with the longest 
text here represent an original form, lost to NBW for the same reason that 
Mark v.-xvi. in this early text-form is lost to W, who. uses one text 
(= ce) in his first quire, and quite another thereafter. This later text 
shows traces of bilingual influence, but is of another character and cast 
to that used for the early chapters. Something happened then, of which 
we are unaware, and we can only surmise the reasons for this state of 
things from internal and circumstantial evidence. 

One thing stands out paramount. Clement must have boos mn 
possession of a Marcan text in chapter x. closely allied to that shown by 
W be in the earlier chapters, and so when Mr. Sanders says “ Someone 
had to send to North Africa for the beginning of Mark” (in order to 
explain the situation as to his W in ch. i.-y.) I think this illustration tends 

’ to show a different state of things. It shows that this Latin text of b+e, 
b+k, was in existence already in Greek Egypt in Clement's day, and 
whether in Latin form or as a Graeco-latin, it perished in Greek Egypt 
(owing to the persecutions or otherwise), so that only a fragment remained 
accessible to W, and nothing of it in Greek remained when NB took up 
their task of copying. 


D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 201 


As to these Egyptian traditions note that 28 sometimes opposes W, 
and goes behind W. For example, at Mark x. 21 we are to read with 
Clem and 28 Sod" only: o S¢ moovs euBreyas (—avrw) of the self- 
righteous young man rendered famous in Matt xix., Mark x., Luke xviii. 

Mr. Barnard has supplied us with a most interesting apparatus on 
what follows in Clem as to Mark x. 23 seg. It is all so frightfully involved 
that it would be too long to discuss at length here. 

His rapa ew Suvarov in x. 27 is closely paralleled by d and k plus ff, a, 
while D in Greek with rapa Se tw Gew Suvaroy is close, but 157 closest 
with mapa 8 dew Svvatov without the article. The Se seems to belong to 
the basic text, although Clem omits, but the absence of the article before 
@ew makes for a thoroughly Latin text in Clem. 

In x. 30 the very difficult Clementine eis wou (for ev tw aiwm) which 
worries Barnard, for it is repeated later (Q.D.S. § 4, §25) many pages apart, 
seems to represent ec@ omov and must be some kind of a colloquial 
equivalent of in aewo of the Latin b d, which short Greek form would fit 
the lines of a Graeco-Latin bilingual in Clement’s hands to correspond 
with the six letters in ‘‘ INAEUO.” 

Another small matter attracts close attention. 

x, 25. For the Greek evxormzepov, Clem uses evxodrws, paov, and Gattor, 

Mr. Barnard says: 

“‘euxodws (in 938) must be a mistake, perhaps for evxorwrepor, tke 
true reading in all three Gospels. paov (in 936) appears to be unsupported, 
but is an easy sense variant (cp. Latin facilius). With @urrov (950, 440) 
compare tayetov in D.” As to D, there is a “window” in the parchment 
here which only leaves r «oy, but we may assume ay. This then makes 
four Greek variants as between D and Clem for facilius (which word is 
constant in Mark, Matt. and Luke among the Latins for evxorwrepov), 
namely tayetov, evxohws, Oattov, and paov. 

Now it requires a stupendous feat of imagination to suppose that, 
when quoting Mark’s Greek, Clement should indulge in three alternative 
Greek renderings for facilius, and yet neglect both the common text of 
the other Gospels evxomwrtepov and also that of D's Greek zayeiov, if he were 
not himself more familiar with Mark in a language other than Greek. 

Tt seems quite clear from this passage that D was translating d into 
Greek. Many other places confirm this (vide supra). Was not Clement 
doing the same ? 

There are other things against this, however. For while d has 
in this very verse transive, D has SueXevoeras opposite, which Clem 
(StexSvcera: Q.D.8. §2) supports as to construction with eimedevoeras, 
Q.D.S. §4 and §26, but ScekevcerOae (Strom).t 


ft But consider x. 80 “vuv de ev rw xaipw rovra " Clem with d‘ nunc in hoc tempore” 
in Mark’s pleonastic manner while D™ omits suv, having only “ev rw xaipw Toure,” 

Of course Clem shows some of the same traces in the other Gospels and from 
Luke vi. 29, where NDW 604 892 alone among Greeks with Clembisds Origter4is use ecs 


202 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


Further Clem reads tpnyaros once (with & in Mark, NB Matt, NBD 
Luke) against tpuparidos of D in Mark. a a ae 

I cannot clear away the labyrinth of complications—it is never 
possible to do so in a passage common to three Evangelists like this t—but 
I think consideration ‘will show here that the Greek text of Mark was not 
Jed: in Clement's day in Alexandria, and. the natural. inference is, in 
the light of all else and of W’s first quire of Mark (= ¢), that a Latin of 
St. Mark's Gospel existed in Alexandria in the second century. 

Consider now St. Jerome’s very deliberate statement (obtained from 
tradition or written documents and no doubt from Papias partly or from 
his source) in his ‘Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiastorum’ : 

“ Maxcus discipulus et interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem 
audierat rogatus Romae a fratribus breve scripsit’ Evangelium. Quod 
quum Petrus audisset probavit et Ecclesiis (al. Ecclesiae) legendum sua 
auctoritate edidit (al. dedit)...Assumto ttague Evangelio quod. ipse 
confecerat perrexit Aegyptum, et primus Alexandriae Christum annuncians 
constituit ecclesiam...Mortuns est autem octavo Neronis anno et sepultus 
Alexandriae succedente sibi Aniano.” te 

If this statement be studied in the present connection it seems to me 
to be somewhat illuminating. St. Mark is -here said to have reached 
Egypt with his Evangel in his pocket. What was that Evangel? If it 





Hv ciayova for em tHv ctayova With all Latins in mazillam, it is quite easy to presuppose 
@ Graeco-Latin in Alexandria in the second century. The coptic expression here is 
exit or Aen. ; 

Cf Luke xiv, 26 enos padyrns twice by Clem alone for pou pays. What is this but 
the Latin meus ? 

Cf also Luke ix. 29 yAnwéy D d (mutate est) ¢ (commutata alia) copt syr arm aeth 
and Origen, Arnob. : Ba 

Note that this follows sharply after ver. 27 where Origen (rov 8 dovea) is alone 
with D and Theodot. for roy viov rov avov epxouevov ev ry 80k avrov instead of rqv Buc. 
tov Geov. 

‘Of course Clement exhibits Western” or foreign readings in the Gospels outside 
of St. Mark, and although they sometimes indicate apparent translation they do not 
seem to hold quite the same position as those referred to in St. Mark. For instance 
John i, 3 yopis is used six times and avev only once; x. 11 ayados five times, xahos 
once, xili, 83 puxpov twice, odryov once. Note however Matt. v. 19 peyioros and 
maximus Cypr, vi. 21 vous (ef Justin and copt), xiii. 11 ro puornpiov, xv. 18 —ex ras 
xapdias efepyerat, which occupies one line in D d, xviii. 20 mapois, xxvi. 27 dafere 
mere with b h syr and Cyr Epiph and Roman liturgy; Luke vii. 25 diayovres, xii. 11 
Pepwoow vpas cs, xiv. 8 avamerre, xxiv. 48 payor as dH, g- 

At Jo. x. 16 cat cis noupnv Clem writes with latt, but not dt 

Latin appears everywhere. It can be detected in Marcion’s Greek of Luke; and 
observe Chron alone at Luke ii. 7 using. avedqxey for averdwey where vett plur have 
posuit for reclinavit of vg. : . 

We may also pause to consider the agreement of Clement of Alexandria's Greek 
quotations from the Epistle of his namesake Clement of Rome with the Latin version of 
this Epistle discovered by Dom Morin (see Turner; Studies in Early Church History, 
p. 253) in connection with a possible Graeco-Latin version of Clem™ in Alexandria. 





t See above, pp. 45/46. 


D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK. 203 


was in Latin or even in graeco-latin form, Clement’s heritage (within a 
hundred years or so) is explained as partaking largely of the Latin base 
of Mark’s document ‘‘ quod ipse confecerat”’ at Rome under the direction 
of Peter. The semitic doublets (referred to elsewhere) as gathered from 
Peter’s preaching or instruction (and in preaching what more likely than 
these emphatic pleonasms), dressed in the Latin language of somewhat 
flowery rhetoric of the time, appear in Mark’s narrative. Here, in 
Mark x. 25, we are only considering “‘ facilius,” but it seems a good place 
to quote St. Jerome's account of the transfer of the Marcan Evangel from 
Rome to Alexandria, whether in accord with the strict facts governing 
the case, or not. Athanasius continues to repeat this tradition, and 
Eusebius (38 §39, 6 §25) carefully chronicles the matter. The latter, 
quoting from the ‘ Hypotyposes ’ of Clement, gives his version as follows : 
“He says that those which contain the genealogies were written first; 
but that the Gospel of Mark was occasioned in the following manner: 
‘When Peter had proclaimed the word publicly at Rome and declared 
the Gospel, under the influence of the Spirit: as there was a great number 
present they requested Mark, who had followed him from afar, and 
remembered well what he had said, to reduce these things to writing, 
and that after composing the Gospel he gave it to those who requested it 
of him, Which when Peter understood he neither hindered nor 
encouraged it.’” 

Were there any other Greek authority for tayetov, Oarrov or paov, it 
would surely have been reflected in some of our Greek or Latin documents. 
As facilius is constant in the Latins, what more.natural than the assump- 
tion that Clement was building on Latin foundations ? 

Remains to consider eveokws. Mr. Barnard says this must be a 
mistake,f but this assumption is extremely doubtful. It may be intended 
to convey the comparative degree of facilius and in fact conveys also the 
“nimbleness”’ involved in @utrov or tayeiov, while being a better verbal 
antithesis to ducxodoy (Svr<odws in the parallels) than evxomwrepov. 

Consider further Clement’s unique avodnwWerat for AaBy in x. 30, 
using the future. Comp. a d q ‘‘accipiet” against “accipiat” of the 
others [& “relingquet’’}. And observe that D (a b d ff, 1 +accipiet) app 
Anurperas ut the end of verse 30 after Sanu aswmov (c +accipit there and 
k& +consequetur, cf syr sin). 


~ + Page 83 note, and page 35 note, ‘‘the meaningless eixcdws.” But compare 
Mark ix. 48 and 47 xadov eore ve xvddov...ij and Kudoy cot ce...) just as in Matt. v. 29 
and 30 cuppepe: yap. ..xat pn Where the comparative degree is absent in the introductory 
clauses. The Latins follow suit. Cf Mark ix. 43 47 bonum est...quam. In k indeed 
donum...quam in ver 48, melius...quam in ver 47. Cf also Matt. xviii. 8 9, Luke xv. 7 
xvii. 2, 1 Cor. xiv. 19, and ef Blass pp. 142/8, “for which there are classical parallels.” 
And above: ‘The positive may be used with the meaning of the comparative (or 
superlative): this occasionally takes place in the classical language, but it is mainly due 
to the example of the semitic language which has no degrees of comparison at all.” 











204 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Once more (Matt xxii. 37, Mark xii. 30, Luke x. 27) we find Clement 
following a shortened form. He has but two clauses: e€ odrys THs uyns 
cou xa e£ odns tnx Suvapews cov. Cf 157 kr, (only among Greeks and 
Latins) and Justin. Mcell=™ also thus ‘‘xata Mapxov"...e& oAns 
rns yuxns (cod Ven wapdias) cou Kat e£ odns THs taxupos cou. 

Finally Mark xii. 41/4 = Luke xxi. 1/4 we find in a rather free 
quotation the expression (ver 42) tyv Se ynpav yarxous Svo0...See 
Barnard’s note where he says Clem follows Mark rather than Luke, and 
observe with him the Greek equivalent of the copper shown by 

aera minuta duo b ff, aera duoc diq in Mark. : 
Now aera duo of d stands right opposite Xewra dSvo in D™ at Mark xii. 42. 
There is nothing in D about yadrxous. In Luke xxi.2d@ has duo minus 
quod est codrantes opposite duo Xewra o eatw xodpiwtns. There a has 
duos quadrantes and s quadrantes duo. The vg has there aera minuta 
duo asc f f,i1q 7, or duo aera minuta as e. 

It is the Latins therefore who supply “‘ brass" or “ copper” whether 
in Luke or Mark, so that the source of Clement’s yadxous vo is very 
clear. There is no Greek authority for yaAxous, not even D nor W. The 
only authority is the yaAxov in Mark xii. 41, but this is quite different 
from Clement's yadxous Svo of verse 42, which corresponds exactly to the 
aera duo of dc iq (k follows the Greek with minuta duo). 

In such a connection observe the occasional and definite agreement 
between D and Egypt, as at 
Mark 

xv. 47. Tov tomov orev (pro mov) Ded ff; ¢ arm sah 

This is the regular Coptic method which Sod. overlooks by not 

reporting sah in his notes. 


Tertullian. 


Tertullian’s first important and genuine Marcan quotation for our 
purposes occurs at ix. 6 concerning the transfiguration, which rans 
“nescit quid diceret Petrus.” This distinctly shows the two old streams, 
for NBC*LA® 1 28 33 2°¢ 604 892 Paris” k boh and Orig" have urroxpiOy 
(azrexpt6n N Orig) while D and the rest and aeth syr have Aa\yoy or 
AaAnce:, and W graphically Awe with sah, while Sod” = edake. The 
Latin of d is loquebatur, but ac ff, q = loqueretur, while b (with filr 
172 &+ gat aur vg) has the diceret of Tertullian (Tisch neglects Teré). Thus 
in Tertullian’s time the diceret of b had not been changed to the responderet 
of k, and sah shows that the first Egyptian flow of the text was diceret or 
Aare and not azoxpi6n, Hence amexpibn of Origen and his friends (observe 





t 8 indeed has diceret right over A™ aroxp:dy. Correct Tisch 4 to A. He hardly 
ever distinguishes, which is most annoying, as 4 in St. Mark so constantly goes with the 
Egyptian group that we must know when 8 opposes, 





D AND THE FATHERS IN ST. MARK, 205 


that 33 Paris are involved in the change) is younger than Tertullian or 
forms a different recension. Sod quotes Orig for Xadet, but see Tisch. 

(The Persian here, if correctly translated, has a very curious way of 
putting it; ‘Et adhuc prae metu concepto ac terrore in sermone erat,” 
thus obviating the difficulty of using either AaAnoe or amoxpiOy, but 
holding the graphic Aa\e by innuendo.) 

Mark 

xiv. 13. Tertullian’s next important quotation is “Cum ultimum 
pascha dominus esset acturus missis discipulis ad praeparan- 
dum Invenietis t inquit hominem aquam baiulantem. Now no 
Greeks Latins nor syr copt appear to have anything concern- 
ing this man but that “@ man (av@pwros) will meet you (in 
Luke as in Mark, all vravtgces or avavtyce: and all occurret 
vobts, or obviadit @ in Luke), not that “ye well find a man.” 
The only authority for invenietis is the aethiopic, another link 
between Carthage and Greek Egypt! Talk of Latin texts 
in Egypt. Here is as startling an instance as any I have 
brought forward elsewhere. It is not noticed in Tischendorf 
nor by Horner, nor by von Soden in his, the latest, critical 
edition. 

Unfortunately there seems nothing else to be gleaned from Tertullian’s 
scanty references to the Marcan Gospel, but if it had been held in that 
esteem which modern scholars accord to it it is impossible to conceive 
such neglect of it by the early Church Fathers, for one and all they 
prefer to cite from St. Matthew and St. Luke. 


Justin. 


viil, 31. As to Justin's use of otavpwOyvat for amroxtarbyvar all seem to 
be against it except Iren and Clem, and D has xat aroxravOnvac 
on one line, but d omits altogether, thus throwing out of gear 
the relation of Latin to Greek for no less than eleven lines. 
They only come together again in ver. 84 where 
d has deneget se ipsum 

et tollat crucem suam 
and D, just before turning the page, puts this into one line: 
apvytagOw eaytov > Kat apatw Tov otpy autov.t 
Thus @ probably was aware of a textual difference. To show how 
one matter can illustrate another, a reference to Evan 157 will show 
another (unique) omission in that Ms in this verse of woAAa sraGew car § 


in two short lines 





t So two uss, and the two others convenietis. 

t We have to infer from this that the Greek of D or of the parent of ,D, although 
occupying the left-hand page of honour, was copied after the latin side d. 

§ b exceptionally has ‘‘ omnia pati et.” 





206 . CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


which seems to show that there was some trouble in an old parent as to 
the line arrangement of both d and 157. In the long lines of D*® xae 
begins six consecutive lices in vv. 31/32 so that there was room for 
trouble. 

Add to this that in the versions the word for male oad pati has 
pean somewhat expanded to include torture, as 


pers multum cruciatum pateretur, 

aeth™ multam injuriae inferrent, 
and it. begins to look as if a complicated interaction among early docu- 
ments had confused pati, crucifigi, and occidi. 


207 


PossiBLE Courses of TRANSMISSION OF ST. Marx’s Latin, 


D 
~-- GRAECO-LATIN GOSPEL. 


AN 
OR 


? 


GREE 


uy 
" N 


. 


YoorUy » 


41dA03 


M=999P 
Bl puBxary 


e2g=p 
sPBBUED 


oO 


aN : 
+@ 180u8K 


BuodaA 


voIus¥ NILVT 


JONVUS 


ONVTauI 





CHAPTER VIII. 


B 1n Sr. Luxe’s Gospen. 
' . Example of editing by B. 

Ti, 25. —xar vmaxovovew avtw B 604 and aeth (Cf Mare iv. 41). 
Possibly a harmonistic attempt. If the omission be really 
neutral, why do W-H not follow it? [Soden’s only new 
witness is 050°? Now 050 throughout Luke is close to B, 
in Mark to D as well as B, while in Matthew it favours & as 

. much as B.] : . 


The “ longer” text in B. 


xii. 14. We have to choose between 
xpirny simply D 28 33 ed syr cu sin Tert™™ 
KpLTQY 1 EpLoTny NBL min alig 
T WSixacrny 9 peptorpy AQRWXIATI unc” al. pl (wep. 9 Sux. o%* 
aeth) apyovta n Kpit. 7 pep. Sod"? while 157 treats us to 
apyovta xat Sixactyy (ex Act vii. 27) 

Tertullian is very definite for «pernv alone. The sah is 
mixed, and Horner’s text follows the Ms which chooses peptotqy 
as a substitute for xp. 7 pep.! 

I think there can be no doubt here who has the correct text, 
and that is the small group D 28 33 ¢ d syr cu sin Tert. Cf. 
Merz vol. ii. p. 302 “‘ Das jtidische Recht kennt keine besondern 
Erbteiler, es war Aufgabe hichstens eines ~1 = Richters.” 

157 emphasises the matter of an amplification by its impro- 
visation from Acts vii. 27 (= Exod. ii. 14). 

Then again close by at Luke xiii. 27 ~o@ev cote D 56 58 
61 291 d (e) Clem” Orig Hier, clearly the “‘ shorter” text, not 
adopted by B nor by W-H nor by Soden. 


Rough List of Approximate Solecisms. 

(For further particulars see Part II. under ‘‘ Differences between & and B.”’) 

ii, 22. —tov (ante xadapiopov) Be 
47. — ot axovovtes avtou BW (Orig™) V9? [Sod non Lake] 
48. Syroupev (pro etntoupev) X* B 69 (6°?) followed by W-H, 
but this is coptic again! Sah has plainly the present enayine. 
The imperfect would have the prefix nas (and the perfect 
eTan). Boh two Mss express this imperfect mankut 
against enkut! by all the rest. But bok?! actually write 
SHINE IC NEKIWT MER AMOK NANO! NELRKAD NOWT 
nme enxuwwt NcwK: “Behold thy Father and I we were 

grieving in heart, we seeking thee.” 
iii, 4. BiSruo Bt 





nko 
1. 


viii. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 209 


8. a€tous kaptous (pro xaptous afiovs) B Orig soli (contra rell 


43. 


. ot (ante vopodsdacxadror) 


et Orig bis) 


. ~Apwada8  B™ (owing to confusion as to whether to read 


Adam or Aminadab; see coptic versions which vary here). 
Actually omitted by W-H on the sole authority of B. 


. yevopeva ets THY Kahapvaoup (pro yev. ev TH Kad.) NBW 


(DL fam 13 604 892) followed by W-H txt without marginal 
alternative. 
See also 


- Kab nv xnpvotwv eis Tas guvaywyas ( pro Kk. Nv Knp. €v Tals 


ouvaywyas) NBDQWYW min paue. 


. €X Tov moto EsiSacKev (pro ed. ex Tov TAotov) B™! followed 


by W-H. This change of order is adopted by ND de but ev 
Tw mhotw e568. is their version. 


sol + 
srs: anh: wears) B B goes wild here about the 


article. Having o dapicaon with BS a few bok [not sah, 
see D rous dap.] but following it «ar ot vowodiSacxador (without 
boh sah) ov qoav ernrvOoTes ex Taons THS Kouns THs Tad. The 
latter quite alone and unnecessary. 


. Tavrev (pro tov Iycov) B Cf Mare ii, 12 harmonistic 
omission 

. Ob TaTEpEs avTWY B 604 syr sin sah solt 

. — kat upens B 604 Paris” a fl W-H 

. —eoT B 604 e aeth (W-H] 

. Sixafere B Paris” 

. SixacOnte BY 

. SixaiwOn (pro edixaiwby) Be 

. 9 mpodnrns BE et P* soli et W-H 


. teat (ante odcyov ayarra) B 892 Paris” solé cum Hust antig 
gr-copt (post fragm T", vide Amélineau, p- 52) 

. autor (pro outot) Be! (Sod of. acr) 

. > ets THY AyLYNY avepov B Paris” a sole 

. —at uTaxovovey avTw B 604 aeth (Sod™) 

. TUS avnp Bel 


. —7ov (ante Incov) Instead of accusing B everywhere (I have 


not referred to the frequent loss of 6 before Incaus) of slurring 
the article in connection with our Lord, we may perhaps 
connect this also with Latin influence [see just above viii. 29 
avo used for agency instead of vo by BE alone = a of Latin]. 
W-H actually place tov here in viii. 35 in square brackets as if 
B had done some clever thing. In viii. 41 they are pleased to 
omit on the strength of NX*BPS c™ (S corrector thought differ- 
ently !). Soden reports no other witness for — tov at viii. 35. 

~ els taTpovs Tpotavadwoaca odov Tov Biov B arm, cf. D sah 

etc. Omitted by JV-H. Noted in ‘Genesis,’ p. 401. 
P 


210 ~ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Lik 
; ‘Vill. 45. —«as ot pet avtov BIT 604 min® sah (syr) In Mark there is 


not countenance for the omission, the phrase being eXeyov 
avTw ot ywabnta. avrov. How did the omission arise here 

- then? (followed by W-H, no word in margin). Well there are 
two variations of reading, cas ot pet avrov EGH ete and 
xat ot cuv auto NACDW etc and & so often with B. Such 
“doublettes” either indicate an original basic omission, or. 
hesitation due to doubt as to which reading to adopt, finally 
resulting in rejection of both. Here, especially as = deserts 
B, it is possible that the omission is a mistake. 

ix. 18. curnytncay B* cum 157 245 f. 

62. —mpos avrov B*' 604 and sah 1/3 or possibly 2/3. Due 
probably to inversion of order here. 

x. 1. -avtous B 604 Paris e¢ Eus*™ (Contra Tert™™ lib 

“Hi...in civitates mittebantur”). This does not seem © 
to be a legitimate “shorter” text, although witnessed to 
by Eus. 

CE. ii. 3 eavtou pro sétav supported by Eus. 

Cf. Canon Cook’s remarks as to Hus. 

“‘ Now when we once more apply these observations to a text which 
on other grounds we maintain to be substantially or completely identical 
with that which was published under the influence of Eusebius, we are 

‘driven to the conclusion that such characteristics are to be looked for; 
and that, so far as they can be shown to exist, they impair, if they do not 
overthrow, the authority of that text in matters so weighty as those to 
which we have called attention in this discussion. 

“That Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of 
Origen no one need be reminded who knows aught of the history of that 
age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early church ;. 
that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, 
especially in questions of criticism, is almost equally undeniable ; nor do 
T hesitate to state my immoveable conviction that in that tnjfluence is to be 
found the true solution of the principal phenomena which perplex or 
distress us in considering the readings of NB.” 

But if this be so, why do not W-H omit avrovs here, for Eus 
replaces Orig ? 

For an example of Origen’s looseness consult Luke x. 19 ov dedwxa 
(vel SiSeope) upew tyv efoveray ratew (— Tov) eravw of. Kat cxopT. 

_ This tov with the infinitive is omitted by Origen four times, although 
he has it twice elsewhere with Hus and Bas. It is also omitted by 
Cyrt# se (against Cyr), by Thdt 2/3, by Epiph, by Caes", by 
Macarius, by Antioch”™, by Athan™*, by Just™? (catararet), but against 
all Mss except W fam 1 (where 118 does not agree to omit it). 

This is a beautiful place to stop at and think this over, because in 
the very same verse B gives us a reading tyv Syvapey tyv tov exOpou only 
supported by Origen, but he thus only once out of six times! 








B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. -  Qih 


Note Luke xii. 42 rou Sdevas (or tov Ssadovvae N (e)) of most 
and Orig 1/2 is opposed by this selfsame Origen 1/2 with Sdovar and 
DLQ(W)X + two Eusé only (and d “ dare” against wt det of the rest). 
Luke 

x. 24, “‘xat axovoat (+pov) d axovete”  B alone, not followed by 

W-H, veT sah supports! Could anything tie sak and B 
closer together? Add Amélineau’s T!?, another ums from 
Egypt but Amél. prints rov. (see below x. 38). 
27. tov Geov (pro tov Beov cov) (Hi only supports B*) 
—xar prim B? 
31. ~e Only B1 [non fam] Paris”, cf. latt f i 1 g (sah et boh 
variant inter se) aeth'™ “per” 
35. exBarwr eSwxev duo Syvapia _—B alone has this order with sah. 
38. ~ets Ter ovxoy auTns B. Not followed by W-H, yet 
sah omits! (see above x. 24.) 


42. odvywv Se ypea eat 4 evos §=— B" (ef. NC?L, 1 33 Paris®) 
xi, 9. KATW YMIN A€PW YMIN AE AITEITE B (pure error not recorded 
by Tisch.) 
11. Kat avts (pro pn av7i) B Epiph (and 234 apparently ; 


also F py xae avti) Not adopted by W-H. 

ibid. ~aptov yn ov emdwoe avto 4 kat B only of Greeks with 
Gilrs sah syr sin arm Orig Epiph W-H. 

12. ~yy B (and L 892 sah). So W-H without a word in the 
margin; see x. 24 38, 

This is a clear case of “ improvement,” yet I may really rank it here, 
as I; does not strengthen B at all. How W-H can look upon L as an 
independent document justifying their course passes my comprehension. 

’-H follow SBL alone Mark i. 39, xvi. 4, BL: Luke xvii. 12 33, xxiii. 39 
42, not NBL xi. 27, Verses 11 and 12 offer here an example of extreme 
condensation by B. It is a “ shorter” text, but very wild. 

xi. 15. BeefeBovX NB only (asin Matt. x. 25) with Paris” BeteSoun vid. 

Followed by W-H against Seed. or Sed. of others and versions. 
x1. 36, ev 7) agtpatn ~—_B sah boh 
42. ~rov Oeov B* (as Tisch says suppl’ et vid jam?) 

There is an excuse for this omission, although harmonistic, for tov 
Geov does not occur in the parallel. 

In Luke it is...nae wapepyecOe tTyv xpiow Kat Thy ayztny tou Beov. 
Tauvta edet Toinga KakeWwa pn Tapevat, 

While in Matt. xxiii. 23...xas agnxate ta Baputepa tov vouou tHv 
Kptow Kat To ed«os (OF Tov Edcov) Kat THY TLOTLW * TavTa Ebel ToLnTaL KaKELva 
Hn adtevat (or adewvar). 

' There is a very pretty exchange as between St. Matt. and St. Luke 
of mapepyerOe and adnxate, and at the end of mapewat and adetvat, but 
the matter you see does not turn on this at all. 

Marcion®?ith is definite about tov Seov and so is Tert™*, and if B 
omits because rov Geov is not in Matthew so much the worse for B. 

P2 


212 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


That there was consultation of the parallel can now be proved, for 
B* (again corrected by B? * 5) with N° if you please (not &*) L 13-346-556 
[non 69-124] 604 calmly substitute St. Matthew's wapewa: for St. Luke’s 
ap. &S* 57 y™ have adewar, and A compounds and conflates with 
mapagtevat. The rest with B agvevar. So NBLA all looked up 
-St. Matthew. The division among the 13 family is here quite instructive. 
[Soden’s text tumbles into this trap, having trape:vac]. 
Luke 
xii. 22. —avrou Bee 
28. audiafee B 
58. -anr' B892 Sod'™, That is to say Sos epyactay arndraylas 
autov instead of dz’ attov, a kind of partitive genitive. So 
also Clem Theodot Basil (and Orig thus: ewav yn evpeOn Tis 
Sedwxws epyactay amndrAayOat Tov avTidixov). 

The Egyptian versions are rather circumlocutory here, sah® 
omitting amr avrov. W-H place am in square brackets in the 
text on the authority of B for omission. 

Clem’s quotations are, first: rovro ro capkiov dytidixov 6 
satyp eivev...xat dwyrrAdyOat auto wapacvel Kata THY BSov 
.... (from Theodotus), 

and, secondly (Strom) "Hy 8@ xai 6 cwrhp avtos...Td piceiv 
kal 16 Aoopety KexodrvKev xal, Mera tod avtidixou Badifev pidos 
abrod wepdOnri aradrayhvar dnoiv (exactly as sah). 

Barnard remarks: ‘The peculiar form of the quotation in 
(527) also supports the omission.” Clearly it has weight 
in that direction, but it does not mean that B is right. It 
is more likely a preferential attitude shared by B and Clem 
and Basil against the rest. 

Cf ii. 37. adiotato tov vepov (—ar). NS supplies ex. 
xxiii. 14. xaripyopecre avtou (—xat’) NALA against B. 

‘slii, 7. tov towoy (pro rny ynv) B* and 80 only, not followed by W-H. 
17. yevopevots (pro ywopevois) B* with 440 (NAD yervopevois, 
_&* Aeyopevous) 

27. wat eper Aeyov vw (pro Kar eper Neyw vv) BT 892 ony. 
Westcott-Hort actually follow this against the omission of 
Aeyw by N 225 it vg sah boh syr pesh diatess (arm) Lucifer. 
Not a sound is to be heard from their margin! Yet all other 
authorities except those mentioned above have Aeyw, and aeth 

syr cu sin hier specifically. Not only is W-H the standard 
N.T. in universities and theological colleges, but it has been 
introduced broadcast into our schools. Imagine the schoolboy 
when he comes to kat eper Neyor vuuw ove oda ToPev ecte. He 
will require an explanation. And the tutor will say “ Well, 

my boy, itis New Testament Greek ”—(for which tutors have 

a profound contempt)— you must remember it is not classical.” 
And so the boy, not knowing that BT are alone responsible for ‘ 


Take 


xii. 32. 


xiv. 1. 


XY. 


XVi. 


xvii. 


12. 
19. ~9 mets cou cecwxe ce B alone with sah 6/9 [contra 


B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 213 


Aeywr (and that the syriac says definitely “Then He will say 
to you Amen I say (to you)”), goes away with the idea that 
St. Luke was a very poor writer.t [Sod adds none for Aeywv.] 
I cannot help following the above with this illuminating 
example. At the end of the verse B (with 56 346aa. bce 
flmqr re aur vg copt syr cu sin sch pesh arm aeth Orig™ bis) 
writes Kat 7 TpLTD ywEpa TeAeLouLaL, supplying nuepa against 
the rest of the Greeks. Westcott and Hort refuse to follow 
(although adopting the difficult Xeywv above). Their text and 
margin are both silent, and the text is simply xae tq Tpirn 
tedecoupar. I do not say that W-H are wrong to exclude 
nuepa, but I do say that as an exponent of the shorter text 
B fails lamentably here to come up to the standard. 
Again, immediately following B falls into an error (only made 
by {NK 892 besides) dropping the second twy after apyortwy 
(duly recalled by W-H by placing it in square brackets) and 
writing nat eyeveTo ev Tw EAE avTov es otKoy TiVaS TwY 
apxovrov daptcarwpy instead of twy apyovtwry tw - 
paptcaiwy. 

This is simply an error from APXONTWNOAPICAIWN, 


. ets elpnyny (—Ta) B p* soli 

. €xov,. . arokery B 

. —Twy (ante ayyenov) B 

. enoev (pro ave%yoev) B Paris’ sah boh (syr) 

- otKovonous (pro oixovoyov) B* sol. Same verse B* drops’ 


apxovta avrou after ra v7’, 


5. evetrioy kupiou (pro evwmoy tov Geov) B only, opposing every- 


thing else, while rou Gcov is confirmed by the mass, by the 
versions and by Ignatius and Const rapa Oew, = 243 Paris% 
Tapa tw Jew. Observe here how Paris" opposes its friend B 
but sides with Ignatius. 

—avtm BI: [male von Soden de 157] W-H et Sod txt 


rell et Tert™™® 8) 


28. oicodopouv B 


. duo emt kA¥Lvys (— tas) B [W-H] alone with ¢ gat vg"T 


[against sek bok which have it expressly] 


t One cannot afford to overlook matters even of a single letter. Thus, in Eustathins’ 
criticism of Origen “De Engastrimutho dissert.,” Allatius’ translation of mepi 8€ Tov 
Aatdpov ypdgo reads: “Ad Lazarum aceedo,” as if Eustathius were speaking, whereas 
some uss read ypa¢ey which entirely changes the sense and makes the following passage 
that of Origen, so that “‘accedo” would be quite wrong, although graphic enough as a 
free translation of ypado. 

{ Tisch omits N in ed, viii. 


a4 


Luke 


xviii. 12. 


15. 
16. 


20. 
xix. 25. 
29. 
38. 
48. 


xx. 13. 


31. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


W-H take the trouble to enclose juas in square brackets, 
but it stood in the text always as bow and sah witness, for on 
the slightest provocation they would omit such a thing in 


‘accordance with their method of expression. 


Even Paris” has it. 

atodexatexw  &*B only (not even Paris) seems purely 
preferential over aroSexatw (= azoSexaTow) of all others as well 
as Orig Bas Cyr. Is it conceivable that no trace of amoSexatevw 
remains in our other documents and that to X*B alone belongs 
the honour (against Orig Basil Cyril) of preserving the apostolic 
form of the verb? It is simply inconceivable. W-H follow 8*B 
without marginal alternative. [Soden adds no new witness. | 
~ avTwy B*' (not adopted by W-H) 

—avta prim  B" (possibly a question of “pairs,” avra 

following later) W-H place it in square brackets. 

vevSouaptupys BN (not adopted by W-H) 


— Kuple B**" ( ” ” ” ” ) 

— edatwv B**' Not noticed by Tisch in ed viii. 

0 epyouevos o Bacikevs B* 

efexpeuero NB soli (pro e&expeyato) Contra rell et 


contra Orig. (Tisch: forma xpepouat pro xpepapnar a vulgari 
usu haud aliena videtur fuisse) NB are sedulously followed 
by W-H. 
— Tt ToINnTw Bt [non W-H] Why do not W-H follow? 
It is a very important gmission. It is either right or wrong. 
Judging from the weight given to B in other places why 
should he be wrong here? He deliberately excides this. (Cf 
Matt xxi. 37, Mare xii. 6). The passage is: ‘‘ evrev Se 0 xupios 
Tou apmedcvos [Tt touncw ;| weuryw Tov vioy pov Tov ayamrnrov * 
tows Tovtov (Wortes) evtpamncovta.” [Omit also Sod]. 

{N.B.—There'is a serious mistake in the notes on this verse 
in Tisch viii. He records B (sol) for tvyor pro icws. This 
should be D who reads thus. ] 
ateOavay B* sol vid (pro are@avor) Not followed by 
W-H (although they use e:ray in xx. 2 and elsewhere). 

At Luke v. 2 NC*LQX have ewdvuvay followed by W-H, but 
BDW have emauvvov, ix. 32 eday NLR, but B reli eSov. 

xxiv. 21 yAmitapev B**' not followed by W-H. 

(xxiii. 2 evpapev of B*LTX fam 1 Epiph 1/8 is followed by 
W-H against S rell Hus Cyr That). 


. Paxatpns B*A 124 only followed by W-H and Tisch (for 


Hayxatpas all else including X and Paris”; D pougdacas) Cf 
payatpn xxii, 49 NB*DLT. - 


. me B™ Cfcopt (‘ad”q) Aliter aeth quando...” 
. Order: tas dwdexa gudas xptvovres BT and ¢ only (non copt). 





Luke 


XX. 


xxiv, 


40. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 215 


This is curious, and although not Coptic, must be closely 
allied to a graeco-copt, for T (graeco-sah) agrees. (Soden’s 
text follows BT). 

It is also against the order in Matt. xix. 28. 

This is quite interesting because immediately following 
(xxii, 31 BLT with sak boh, Bas 1/2, syr sin [non cu] only omit 
the introduction e:re Se 0 xupios, and they alone). 
mpocevyetbe pun ets Tetpacpov (—ecedOev) B* sol, There 
may have been hesitation here as to whether to use eceAOew, 
edOew (D), eumecew (fam 13), go into (sah) which finally led to 
exclusion in error. 

[In Horner’s notes to sah, he quotes boh®* for this omission. 
I find nothing in the notes in the bok volume to this effect. 
Is it perhaps a mistake for Greek B ?] 


. -o (ante evOpwos) B* 604 al (suppl B*) [in square 


brackets W-H]. 


. +rov (ante Hpwdnv) BT [non bok sah] not followed by W-H. 
. vo avtov (pro um’ avtov) B™ cum 892 [W* does not 


countenance this nor does WV-H adopt this strange hiatus]. 


. Brndas (pro Be8dnuevos) BLT 892 Paris” only against all the 
ag 


rest. N* omits, N° bas SeSAnwevos with W and all the others. 
If PanOes be original, as WV-H and R.V. and Soden intimate, 
why should all the rest, including DW, have the other? How 
comes it that KMII, who agree as to textual principles in ver 
15, and AKT. in ver 17 abandon a form of BLT here? For it 
isaform and a preference of BLT I am convinced, and not 
the true text. 

{In Mark xv. 7 BeSrnpevos evs tov gudannu (or PrAnOes ev 7) 
guaran) is replaced by pera rev craciactey ‘ debeuevos.”} 


. oTavpwcaL B* (pro stavpwOyvat) This looks 


like a distinct attempt at improvement, but curiously enough 
B remains alone. Hort (not unhappily) puts B’s reading in 
his margin. (T ceases to be available at xxiii. 20). 

{In Matt. it is cravpwOy_Tw, in Mark ctavpwcor). 


. annyov (pro annyayov) Be i** (Less happily W-H put 


tbis in the margin). 


. & (—Tw) vype fudrAw BCT' only [not Paris” ] Very natural 


but opposed to all and sah bok, which are very definite 
“in the tree which is green.” 


. 7 heyov BL 597 Zand W-H apparently alone 
. exaTovtapyys (pro exatovrapyes) N*BT'II* fam 1 

. ayaGos Sixatos (—Kai) B*' et sah [Soden neglects this]. 

. autous (pro cat avtos) B' but this avrouvs comes immediately 


below the previous avtovs. Cf sah and ce. 


. nyyicay (pro nyyicav) B* 
. Opondevres (pro wronbevtes) B*' Sod'™ (dignified by a place in 


216 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Hort’s margin; but where is o8yPevtes of N andW?) All others 
(but BN which are opposed to each other) have wrron@evtes. 
Notice the rho in the coptic (sah mTepovatoptp, beh erTat- 
qeopt ep). 
Opoew, I beg to observe, is not a Lucan word. It does not occur in 
the third Gospel nor in Acts. 
It is found only in Matt. xxiv. 6 (@pocvcde), Mark xiii. 7 (poera8e). 
2 Thess. ii. 2 (@poec@at), Whereas wrocm has already occurred in 
Luke xxi. 9 xy wron@yre ft (wrronets is found in 1 Pet. iii. 6) and does not 
occur elsewhere. Hort’s margin here finally reduces the whole science 
of his textual criticism to absurdity. 
Oponfevres should be labelled ‘ B prod. ex copt”’ or not allowed in his 
margin at all. Only found by Soden in the Sinai Ms 260 (his #37), Obs. 


Soden’s new witness is a resident of Sinaz. 
Luke 


xxiv. 38. 72 (pro &at:) BA? Tert (quid...quid contra rell quid... 
quare). All others incl. Cyr seem perfectly distinct for d:are 
in the second place. Sah differentiates but hardly boh 
= xe eokeor... ot0g, eekKeors.. Paris with all the 
rest and NW have distinctly : 

Tt TeTapaypevas ecte kat Sate Saroyeouoe. 

There is not the slightest doubt that the dropping of &a in &a7 is a 
mistake from the propinquity of da in S:adoyopor. Tert here is contra- 
dicted by the Latins and is either quoting loosely or his Greek copy also had 
&a by mistake, but it has not passed over into the Latins; the Old Syriac 
differentiates slightly, but hardly syr* °“". DL 382t¢ Dial®*’ substitute 
eat warttfor xat Sate. To my astonishment Hort does not follow B here! 
This action makes OponGevres in marg. just above look all the more ridiculous. 
There is an excuse for using the double t: here if he had wished to, for 
who knows but that as originally spoken or set down the same word was 
not used? It would not be abhorrent to a semitic form of speech. And 
when finally the written Gospel was polished and edited (as certain 
people are never tired of telling us was the case so very long after the 
spoken words) this little roughness was removed. 

xxiv. 39. «at capka cat octea §=B* 2 

52. —peyarns B* sol. Notice here the bohairiec (aliter 
sah) ovenigyf TMpacs the two gj making it possible for 
someone to be misled in a closely written Ms and overlooking 
one word. 


t D, which baulked here and substitut2s yn poByéere, does not vary in xxiv. 37 giving 
avrus 8¢ wronGevres and d ipsi autem pauerunt, d even retaining the alliterative p, while 
the other Old Latin are content with turbati and conturbati and a with exterriti. 

t But 382 with Ha has Aoyiopo for diakoyiopor | 

Hence the KAIAIATIAIAAOTICMO! became 
KAIAIATIAOFICMO! with HA 
KAHNATIAOFICMO! with 382 








B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 217 


As to Latin sympathy consult first : 
Luke 
vil. 35. xat edixarwby 9 copia amo Tavtw@y TwVv TEeKvaV auTHs. 


BW fam 69 (om wavtwy 18) 157 892 Paris” syr sin pesh Latt 
kat etx, 9 copia ato TavTwY tev epywv autns N 
Kat edixawlyn n copia ato TwY TEKY@Y AVTHS TaVTwDV 
A reli omn sah boh 
(-—mavtrev NDEVLMXY Sod 1 13 28 604 al'§ arm syr cu) 

W-H places the reading of (X)B in text with the other order in margin 
(nothing is said of the omission of zavtwv), but Tisch text had refused to 
follow this, observing: “mavtev ante tov cum NB 69 124 157 346 it og 
(AT HOC EST FERE EX USU LATINORUM) sy7*,” 

The question is whether the omission of zavrey outright by 
XDE"’LMXY 1 13 28 604 al syr cu and arm may not be the “ neutral ”’ 
text. 

As both sah and boh have vavtov at the end with the regular Greek 
order they certainly did not get their reading from NB. Hither NB slipped 
it in from a marginal comment, or are here following Latin order from 
a Graeco-Latin, where the Latin and Syriac influence had already 
predominated in the Greek column. (Soden follows BW and Hort.) 

And what of viii. 26 yepacnvev BD and Laté? and iv. 43 de pe 
BDW 892 lati? But consider the rest in proper order. 


Luke 


i. 25. —1o (ante overdos) NB*DLW 1 [non fam] 604 Paris” 
[non al.] The presence of D is suggestive. 
26. amo (pro umo) NBLW°WY 1-131 [non 118-209] 


fam 13 2” 604 892 Paris? Why not D here? 
63. ovopa avtov (pro to ovoya avtov) B* 2°* Orig*™, sed ovopa 
avto L 604 Paris” Orig®™ ut Tisch aiebat “atque ex 
his L Orig autw pro avtov.” 


69. —tou (ante maidos) NBDLW 2°¢ 892 Paris” Cyr contra 
rell et Hus 
74. —Tewv (ante exPpur) NBDLW fan 1 fam 13 33 892 Orig 


[xon 604, vide infra Paris*] 
[vey exOpwr reli et Twv exxOpwv R] 
[wavtev twv exySpwr K et ravtev tov picovvtewy Paris”) 
The above, as more or less Latinisms (plus other omissions of the 
article) seem confirmed by : 

15. macaw tai nyepars (omnibus diebus all Latt except a d) 
BLW 2° Paris” only. Origen wavers, but d@ Iren omnes 
dies and Orig**8 as the other Greeks macas tas nuepas. 

Followed by : 
i. 2. —1 (ante aroypagn) NBD Sod 131 [non fam 1] 2°* p** 604 
(non Paris*] = Latin or error from AYTHHAMOPPAGH 
ibid, xupewou (pro xupnviov=) B  (xuptvou W) 





218 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


ii, 12. onpetor (—TO0) BE 180 (= Cod. gr-lat) sah contra 
rell omn et boh et ® rell 604 Paris” Hus. 
W-H tat om to. Habet marg. (Om sah Tisch) 
22. —rov (ante xaBapisov) B*' [non Paris” non al.] 
44, >avtoy ewat ev Ty ovvodia NBDLW Sod fam 1 [non 181] 
33 124 (892) latt [non Paris®"] 
This seems to be Graeco-Latin, for at once afterwards at: 
45. «ae pm evportes (— autor) of NBC*DLW fam 133124 [non fam] - 
892 [non 604 Paris” rell] is borne out by aeth ? and the latt 
cde ff g.2 1 against the rest and oer copt syr goth and a b 
fq remaining Latins. 
Note also in the same verse : 
ava §nrourtes (pro &touvres) NSBCDLW Sod Paris®” and 
latt®' requirentes (a b e quaerentes). Notice &* had &yrourres, 
but &° referred to other authorities. 
iv. 25. ort exdecoOn o oupavos (— em) ern tpia Kat pnvas e€ BD min 
[non 1 non 604 non Paris*’] lat syr arm aeth 


35. ax (pro e€) NBDLVWE min™ latt Orig. This is 
followed by: 
(38. amo (pro ex) NBCDLNQWS fam 1 fam 13 22 33 604 


Paris” [non al.] Orig and d (‘a instead of “de” rell)) 
43. > Ser pe (pro pe Se.) BDW 892 lait et Tert™™ [non Paris” rell] 


v. 3. otpevos NBDLW 157 Paris” for tov oyuwvos rell t 
5. odns vurros NABLW 33 1381 for oArns rs vueros rell 
(On the other hand B carelessly adds alone rns before cwpns 
v. 17.) 
vi. 31. —xar vpets B 604 Paris” a fl Iren'™ W-H 


Vili. 6. ewe metpay (pro em: tny wetpav) B alone with doh (indef. article) 
29. nrauveto azo tov Sayomov ets Tas Epnuous (pro yr. vTO TOV 
Sayovov €.7. ep.) BE only against & rel. 
Consult Matt viii. 24 where B? changes vo tev xupatev to 
aT oO TWY KULATOD, 
ix. 12. 98 (pro 7 Se) B. Sojame fir. (Note B is alone here 
if we except Evan 60 dn Se) But that wonderful cursive 








t It is perhaps unwise to say anything about the omission of the article before the 
nominative (‘In some few instances the use or omission of the article is also a mark of 
the distinctive style of the writer.” Winer ‘Gram.’ Eng. edition, p. 146) for in such a 
place as Luke ix. 20 merpoc 8¢ amoxpiOers, which looks like Latin, is supported by sah boh 
as well as NBCLZ fam 1, 

A curious instance of playing with the articles is to be found at Luke x. 15, where 
B withholds rov from ovpavov and adds it before ddov. Shortly afterwards B writes in 
Luke x. 19 cat em macay tay duvapw tyv Tov exdpov. In this he has support from 
Orig 1/6, which is worthy of careful notice. Elsewhere five times Orig omits this second 
my. Clearly there is 8 point involved, as B is alone thus but for Orig 1/6. W-H refuse 
to accept this “nicety’’ (see Canon Cook) of Origen, although they followed above: yy 
€ws ovpavov vpwleon, ews rov adov KaraByon. 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 219 


Luke 
Paris”, the survivor of a similar ms to B, is also found to have 


non plainly without de [von Soden forgets Paris” in his notes]. 

Had W-H known of Paris* I am quite sure they would 
have admitted 457, for they only need any additional Greek 
support when B is alone. But this seems to originate froma 
Gr-Lat. 

ix. 49. ev Tw ovopatt for ext Tw ovopatt So NBLXAZY 33 604 min” 
(not D nor the rest) and Coptic. (In Mark ix. 38 only U reads 
emt, the rest ev, or simply tw ovouari, so that there would have 
been small excuse for “ Antioch” to have substituted em: in 
Luke.) 

52. ws (pro wore) B with N only and a ve dq followed by W-H. 

x. 42, aurns (proam avin.) NBD*™L Paris’ Partitive genitive 

Cf.abe filg {non da). 

xl, 11. -aprov, pn dMOov erBooa avtw; exact B fil, but also syr 

sin [non cu] sah arm Orig Epiph. 

I rank this here for lack of other Greek support. 

Presumably Orig Epiph syr sin and even sah represent a 
Graeco-Latin at this place.t Observe that all this testimony 
is contradicted by the Dial and by all other Greek documents, 
yet W-H must needs subserve B and Orig. 

27. tts devny yurn (pro tis yury dwvynv) This by NBL, a matter of 
order (atiter copt) is largely supported by latin eztollens vocem 
quaedan mulier b f F @1q; levata voce quaedam mulier a; 
but in ¢ not so, and D d ¢ go with coptic otherwise. 

34. 0 AvXVOS Tov TwpaTos eotv o opbarpuos +oou N*ABCDMW 

boh syr pesh latt et txt W-H et Sod. 

I class this here because NEGHKLSUVXIAATI sak syr 
cu sin arm would surely seem to be correct, against this 
handful of Greeks and all latin which have it, in omitting 
cov (as Tisch says “deest in Matt. nec add nisi pauci”) for 
cov is out of placc. Ob@AAMOCOTAN may have given rise to 
it originally. It is an early error, but an error all the same. 

The division of authorities should have safeguarded W-H 
and Soden here. For when syr pesh joins NB, and syr cu sin 
and sah remain with EGH there is something to be adjusted 
in our hard and fast critical “‘ rules”! 

48. waprupes ecre NBL 604 892 (aeth) Orig (pro papruperres). 
Soabfqr rs pw (hiat f) testimonium perhibetis [against testi- 
Jicatis of d and the testificamini of vg]. So Soden and W-H. 

ibid. T cite the above, because in this same verse avrwy ta urnpea 


t And Tertullian seems to pass this over. But his quotation is quite unsatis- 
factory ad loc. 


220 : CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 
Luke 


omitted by NBL is also omitted by D and the latins a bdeil 

and syr sin although not by all bok nor the rest of the Latins 

nor by W. 

xi. 51. —rov (ante amatos) pr. That is azo amatos ABeX. This 
sounds very rough in Greek, although witnessed to by 
NBCL 1 383 892 Paris”. To these add DX, and I think the 
secret is of a graeco-lat. Soden follows Hort again here. 

—tov (ante aiuatos) sec. The same. 

In both cases Coptic has the article. 

xii. 1. catawatew B does not vary from the mass, but there is 
® suspicious look about the place as if the second tau might 
have been a gamma originally. We are led to enquire 
whether something like the cuvruvyew of D may not have 
stood there. 

42. —T1o (ante airopetpiov) Only BD fam 18¢ [non 124] latt and 
one bok Ms J. (The other boh and sah have more definitely 
still “their food”). W-H enclose to in square brackets 
against all other authorities. 

54. —rtnyv (ante vepernv) NABLNXAY 83 157 604 al® arm latt 
and also sah boh. Clearly here the combination of uncials 
(including A) shows latin aNnD coptic hanging together, 
and doubtless vegednv was the Greek reading antedating 
coptic, but also probably from a Graeco-Latin of that age. 
Observe however D is not in the combination, for it reads 

7 Thy ved. against nubem opposite. § 

59. ews (pro ews of) Only NBL 1 892 Orig. Add not even 
Paris’. This is hardly an improvement, and may perhaps 
come under this head: “‘donec.” In doh it is one word 
gaTexf and in two sak mss, but in the three other sah 
Mss it is expressed differently [Soden’s text has ews only]. 

In all such cases D d takes its own line “ ews ov, usque quo,” alone 
apparently among Latins, and W Paris” confirm ews ov. W-H must 
needs revert to @ careless quotation of Origen. This is no careless 
remark of mine. See Orig and B again at Matt. xviii. 34. B alone 
(Matt. i. 25) suppresses ov after ews before erexev urov, but lets it (orov) 
stand in John ix. 18 before efwrncay, and in Luke xiii. 8, Act xxv. 21 
before cxayw and avarepyw. All omit before eAdwv in Matt. ii. 9 
correctly enough. B seems to be eclectic, for in the parallel at 
Matt. v. 26, where ews av is used, B does not omit, although 33 does, 
while L substitutes ews ov. 


¢ In any revision by Gregory of Tisch. viii. I hope he will be more definite about 
fam 18. Again and again (as here naming 69 alone) Tisch implies that one member 
reads thus, whereas only 124 opposes. 








B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 221 


Concerning the N.T. use of ws. 


As the Grammarians are unsatisfactory as to the use of ews with 
and without av or ov or otov, and as it seems to make very little difference 
whether the indicative or subjunctive follows, I have drawn up the 
following list, which I hope may be of some use for reference. The 
suppression of ov and av where it is properly required, and in which B 
stands out as rather the chief culprit (and D in different places), may 
have been caused by the very frequent use of éws otherwise alone, 
especially with the genitive. Apart from over fifty cases of this use: ews 
Tov atpaTos, ews THS TUPTEAEAS, EWS ETYATOY TIS YNS, Ews TOU Depicpov,t 
ews TS nuepas, t ews awwvos (aliq; al. evs Tov awva), ews (+Tov FG only) 
Tpirov ovpavou etc, there are besides many cases with indeclinable nouns, 
with particles, with participial substantives etc, as ews Aaveid, ews tev 
eta, ews ByOdeep, ews THs onuepov,§ ews emTaxis, ews Lapound (Tov) 
am pogntov. 

Even ews nyutov LA (Mark vi. 23) where others have ews qyicous (or 
nyigou or even nuicews [kar to nuicu D be ff}), and such uses as ews 
Oavatou (Matt. xxvi. 38, Mark xiv. 34), ews avtov (Luke iv. 42), ews toutov 
(Luke xxii. 51), ove eotw ews evos Rom. iit. 12 all and Orig Ambrst 
(except B 67** (sy) —ovx eat), ews peyadov Aeyortes (Act viii. 10), 
SieAGew ews nuwv (Act ix. 38), ews A@nvev (Act xvii. 15), ews peyadou (avtwr) 
(Heb. viii. 11) besides ews ecw (om cow D al.), es tyv avanqv (Mark 
xiv. 54), ews tov vey (Matt. xxiv. 21, Mark xiii. 19), ews pos ByOanar 
(SBC*(D)L 1 33 a@ [e quasi], ews ets al., ews 237 latt), ews ckw THs 
mrorews (Act xxi. 5) [—ews only N 68 d], cws ext tyv Oadraccay (Act xvii. 
14) SABE min lat copt syr (ws HOP al. arm Chr), ews wote (Matt. xvii. 17, 
Mark ix. 19, Luke ix. 41, Jo. x. 24, Rev. vi. 10), ews apre (Matt. xi. 12, 
Jo. ii. 10 fall except I" ews tov vuv], ews wde (Luke xxiii. 5), ews xatw 
(Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38), ews avw (Jo. ii. 7). 

Once with infinitive : ews tov edOecy (Act viii. 40), once with aorist: cws 
nev (Matt. xxiv. 39), once with present participle: ews eA@wv (Matt. it. 9) 
{see below Matt. xxvi. 36], or with participial noun ews trys wapoveras 
Jas. v. 7 (ews av ABKL Occ); separated from the verb: 2 Thess. ii. 7, 
ews ex petou yerntar (ews av FG only); ews to das eyere (Jo. xii. 36), 
others ws To Gas exere, and Cyr hier 1/2 ews ov. 

In a great variety of ways ews is used in the N.T., and this may 
have led to carelessness. 





ft ews rov Oepiopou (Matt. xiii. 80) BD Eulog; but peyp: plus, and axp: X*L, while 
Chrys sss give all three, axpt, pexpt, eos ! 

t eas ros nuepas exewys otay avro muvw (Matt. xxvi. 29), bub pexpus av ma avto Clem; 
aro tov vuy ews avro mia Orig; ov pny mo auToy eas av mia Hus, 

§ Or even ews rye onpepoy G min® (Matt. xxvii. 8); ews mms onpepov nyepas 
Rom. xi. 8 (without variation); and ews onpepov (2 Cor. iii. 15). 


222 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


There are nearly half a dozen cases of ews ev or ews av with the 
indicative (the rest are all subjunctive). Observe the situation :— 
Matt, 

i. 25. ews ov evexer Om ov B*! 

v. 25. ews orov ev pet evou _ all (except D* om ews) 


vi. 45. ews autos arodves (all, except D™ Sod™ 2° b = autos de; ews 
Sew avtov A; avodkvoa E*KY, axodvon al., but amodver NBL) 


. eS OTOU cKaa all 

. 603 dayw xat Tu (indic. or subj.) ews alone text rec. and 
NBDIPAA unc’; ews av AKLMXII; ws ov min paue. 

xix. 13. ews epyouar TAA unc’; ews av min pauc (epywpar 8); 

’ but ev  epy, NABDELRII Orig 


» 
8.5: 
Bip: 
@ 


Jo. 
ix. 4. ews nuepa corw all (except C*L 83 Orig? b d = ws) 
18. ews orev eporgcay _ all (except DX ews ov) 
xii. 35. ews To pas exere NTAA unc’ verss; ws To gas exere 
ABDKLXTI 1 33 42 108 w*" Cyr 
36. ews to pas exeTe XTAAIL? unc® verss; ws to dws exete 
. NABDLII* 33 42 108 o% w*" aeth Did Ath™ 
xxi. 22. ews epyopat all (epywpar T min‘) 
23. ews epxonat all 
Act if 
xxv. 21. ews ov avarepryw all 
1 Tim, 
iv. 13. ews epyouar all 
Matt. 
ii. 13. es av eto all 
v. 18. ews av Taped On prim loco all 
tbid. ews av mavta yerntas sec loco Om av B™ 
26. ews av arrodws all except Li min” ews ov, and —av 33 
: [non B] 
x. 11. ews av cEerOnte all 
23. ews av EXOn Om av SBX (ews ov &°) 
Ril. 20. eas av exBadrn Om av LX 


xili. 33. ews ov efupwOn all (as in Luke) 

xiv. 22. ews ov amodvon _ alll (but avroAvces KT) 

xvi. 28. ews ay Swow all (as in Luke ix 27) 

xvii. 9. ews ov o vios Tov avOpwrrou ex vexpav yyepOn all 
xviii. 30. ews ov arode Om ov NBCL 

84. ews ov atrodm - Om ov B Orig 
xxii. 44) ews av Oo Om av F** (gee below Mark ix. 1 as to F, 
and xii. 36 as to D) 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 223 


. B9. ews av ermnte all 
. 84. ews ay wavta TavTa yevntar —av &, ews ov 157 (see Luke xxi, 32). 
36. ews ov avredOwy exe mpocevEwpat Bet plur ; ew: av DKLMTA; 
ews ov av A; ews NCM* min? (ews mpocevk. in Marco) 
1. ews av Swow Om av F™ (see above Matt. xxii. 44) 
. 86. eas av Ow Om av D™, sed D* Gacw, D? Anew 
82, ews mpocevEapa. +av U, +ouv min aliq; (mpocevEopac 
DHXI) 
27. eas av dacw all (as in Matt. xvi. 28). 
50. ews ov Tero On EG’HSVXPAA Orig 1/4; ews otov 
NABDKLMRTUII Orig 3/4 Dion®™* 
59. ews ov nat to exy. AewTOV aTrodws ews ov (A) DXTAATI une? ; 
ews av T; ews NBL 1 Orig 
(In the parallel (Matt) 33 omits but not NBL) 
i. 21. ews ov eLupwbn all (as in Matt) 
(35. I omit as being too complicated.) 
4. ews evpy ews ov NAMUAA al.; ews orov 254 
8. ews orov evpn Plur; ews ov SB (ews cou LX); om 
otov D 69, 
43, ews av Ow ~av, et re D*™ 
32. ews ay wravra yernrat —av ND 33 (see Matt xxiv. 34) 
16. ews orov TAnp@dn all (except fam 1 ews ov) 
34. ews Tpis atrapynan NBLT fam 13 157 (ews ov KMXII; 
ews orou D; mp GATA®™ A une) 
18. ews orov n Bac. tov Geov Abn {ews ov... NBC?FL) 
49. ews ov evdvanabe (ews orov D 1 157; ews av Chr Thdt 
Cyr 1/2 [ews ov 1/2] 
38. ews ov apynon (ews av Orig; ~—ov X) 
. 85. ews av Oo (om av D*) vide infra Hebd i. 13 
. 26. ews av mrpaanvexOn (ores D® ; -ov 100) 
12. ews ov avroxtewwow all 
14. ews ov atroxtewopev (ews av 105; —ov 13) 
21. ews ov avethwow all 
5. ews av eXOn all 
7. ews ex perou yevytas (ews av FG) 
13. ews av Ow (om av D*E*) vide supra Act li. 35 
13. ews teOwow all 
19. ews ov nuepa Stavyaoy all 





224 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Apoc, 


vi. 11, ews mAnpwcwrw (—Owow CA) NAB[apud al. = Q|CP 
. (ews ov min alig) 
xx. 5. ews reXeoOn (aypt AB al.) 
Add perhaps for further illustration : 
Mark F 


xiii. 30. weypis ov Tavta wavra yevnrat Plur (sed peypis otov B; 
pexypt NS; ews ov D, ews av 1 13 28, ews W Sod? 2”) 


Lak 
xxi. 24. ayps ov wAnpwfwcw NBL al. 
axpis ov 3 CDR al. 
axpt (—ov) ,, AXTATI une® al. pl 
Acts 
vii. 18. ayps ov averry B*CcD 
axpis ov avertn NAB*°EHP ail. omn vid 
Rom. : 
xi, 25. aypis ov To TANpwpA Tov eOvev etcedOn Omn (et B* aypi ov...) 
Cor. ; 
: xis 26. aype ov «XOn N*B* 
axpts ov edOn N*AB*CD*FG Bas Cyr Chr 1/2 Euthal 
: Dam 
aypis ov av edn N°D°EKLP Chr 1/2 Thdt Phot 
xv. 25. axpt ov On X*AB*P 
axpts ov On B°D*FG al. Orig (lect fluct ut infra) 
: Hipp Eus Epiph Dam 
axpts ov av On ND"KL (Cyr) Did Marc Chr Thdt 
aypts av On _ Orig partim Ath 
Gal. 
lili. 19. axpis ov eXOn Plur et 8 Orig 


axpis ov av edn B17 71 Clem Eus 
iv. 19. axpis ov poppoOy NACDEFGKLP Clem Meth 1/2 Eus 
pexpis ov pwopdwly = &*B 37 116 (Meth 1/2) 


“iii, 18. axpis ov to onepov Kardertat Omn (praeter M ayps ov) 


i li. 25. ayps ov av nkw NC min pauc 
. axpis ou av nfo P 
ews av nko A 47 
axpts ov nko 38 59 69 121 
axpis ov avotw B (= Q) min mult 
aypts ov Ow 56 


axpis ov av Ow 81 
vii. 3. axpt cdpayicopey ACP 112 al. paue Orig’ 
axpis oppayicwpev N67 ‘ 
axpts ov odcay. B (= Q) al. 
axpis av odpay. 18 21 28 79 al. pauc 
xv. 8. aypererecbwaw —~ Omn praeter C 
aypts ov TerXcoOwow C 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 925 
A 


xvil. 17. aype teAeo@ncovras NAP etc, Hipp 
aype TeXNcoOwow B (=Q) ete. 
aypt Tehec On Text recept sol. 
xx. 3. aype Ter. Onn 
From the above the first thing which attracts notice is the lack of 
sympathy between N and B; the second is the eclecticism and looseness 
of Origen. In the last part of the table I have added the Patristic 
testimony which Tischendorf gives, and here again, especially in 
1 Cor. xi. 26, xv. 25, can be seen wide difference of opinion. 
The net result, as regards B, seems rather definitely to go far 
to prove a personal element predominating in his choice of expressions 
in the different places involved. 


Latin sympathy (continued). 
Luke 

xiv. 5. ev nwepa tov caBBatov instead of ev tm nuepa tov caBBatou 
only 8*B (min pauc Tisch but not specified, = 131 157 a ’). 
This following wece:ras (ceciderit or cadet) so closely in the 
verse against emecetae looks like Latin influence “ die 
sabbati.” 

31. Bovrevcetar (pro Bovdeverai) Only NB W-H Sod and latt 
(except ¢ d). Not even Paris’ comes to join NB here. Sod. 
adds 050 3372 1353 | 

Similarly : 

32, amocteidas epwra «ts epyyny § B (apos epnyny X*T) 
sympathises with the Old Latin pacem, dropping ta, which 
the later Latin vulgates have with f as ea quae pacis sunt. 
d has quae ad pacem without sunt and D ta mpos etpyrnv with 
the mass. 

W-H for some reason prefer mpos epyvny in their text to the 
eis evonyny of B. 

xv. 4. awokecn B* and D Method and Latin only and (syr). No 
other Greeks and not W nor Paris”. But observe B has 
exov...amodxeon, While D has oo efet.. .amroXeon. 

This BD conjunction here is emphasised in the same verse by the 
order e£ avrwy év (for é&v e€ avtwv) by NB and D® parts of fam 1 and 
fam 13 157, to which add W and Paris”, and ¢ only (against d and the 
Latins). Cf xxii. 50 e€ avtwy tov apytepews tov Sovrov (pro e& avtwy 
tov Sovdov tov apy.) NBLT fam 13 [non 124] non W non 157 non Varis™ 
hoe loco. 

xv. 10. ywera: yapa evwmioy ayyedav (—Tev) B™ (Gf. lat) 

22. +7ayy NBLX(D) 892 Paris goth copt arm aeth™ and Latt. 
This seems to be an accretion. The other Greeks witness to 

Q 








226 


Luke 


xv. 23. 
xvi. 26. 
toid. 


xvii. 33. 


xix. 8, 
17. 
xx. 10. 


xxi. 3. 


xxil. 17. 
xxiii. 42. 


ibid. 


54. 
xxiv, 19, 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


the shorier text. W also opposes D here. (+7axews D 
13 157). 

depere (pro eveyxavtes) NBULRX Paris” latt syrr copt aeth (D 
Dam eveyxate) This looks like a strong combination. But it 
is doubtful. WY and the rest oppose including 892. 

ev (pro ert) NBL and all latins (but a e m) bok [not sah] 
This runs against the mass and Dial Chr Ephr. As to sah 
and syr Aphraat they express ié differently. 


-—o see. S*BD and latt which does not express it. Sod 


adds nothing. 
mepirounaacba: (pro cwoat) BL Paris” only W-H Sod [not 
& = coca: with fifteen uncials and all min. gat e ff 8} 

Cf liberare bc tq, and salvum facerea fl rvg; d with D 

goes on a separate course with bivicare and Sweyovncat. 

— ros (ante mrwyots) B 71 248 and lat [W-H] 

evye (pro ev) BD 56 58 61 892 Orig latt 

Kat Kap (— ev) NBL min perpauc and D latt [non e f 

921 copt]. See Tischendorf's illuminating remark about the 

presence of €N in syr cu sin where it seems to be confounded 

with &. At any rate it was present in their Greek. [N = «ar 

ev Tw xpove. | 


. eTepov mepy-at Sovriov | NABLUY 


. TplTov tmenrpat NBLY min pe af tat (contra cope). 
. —tov (ante Oeov) NABDL (157 latt quos vide) 
. ~0 (ante xvpws) BD only 
auTn yn TTHYN NBDLQ latt pl. 
. ab Kapouas voy ABXW only and lati syr 


(against the coptic method) 


. Order: Si8acxwv ev to tepow BK only and latt (except a) syr 


(against 8 and the rest) Paris’ does not support B here. 
ets eautous (pro eavTors) XBCLM laté syr 
—tw (ante inaov) N*BC*L (laté). The coptic is 
very mixed here some sah and boh saying xe 1c = Jesu! 
others ftrc xe Tw toov. Already Orig and Orig'* 2/3 have 
made it Domine Jesu memento in this place. 
eu thy Bacikeav (pro ev ty Bactkea) Buce f f lrg 
Orig" pluries W-H [non Paris”. Soden adds no cursives. | 
nega nv TapacKeuns (pro np. nv mapacxevy) NBC*L lat 
vatapnvou ( a vatwpatov) NBILT' Orig? latt, opposed by the 
others, by Paris” and distinctly by sah 
I say “ Latin: acel?vg” because it is a Latin form. Sak 
was evidently made from the Greek (nnazuspatoc) and the 
Latins b d ff [* similarly from a Greek. (The boh turns it 
Tupereitazapee). 1 has nazoreno which is composite, but 
at some time clearly NBIL felt the latin influence. 


Luke 


ii. 


26. 
28. 
30. 
31. 
t (ibid. 


ibid. 
82. 


33. 





B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 227 


Tisch adds here: “Luc iv. 84 w vafapnve non fluct,” but 
D* reads here vafop. D? Evst 47 vatwp. e [* q nazorene. 
Follows a quotation from Tert (g.v.). Tisch continues “ xviii. 37 
te o vatwpavos habetur quae forma etiam septies in Actis legitur. 
Praeterea Joh ter vaSwpacos, Me ter vatapnvos.”” 

Anyhow, whether Latin or merely preferential, NBIL carve 
the usual special line here. 


Coptic. 


9. efoSnOncav chodpa B™ Cf W and boh only, as to this. 
iii. 20. 


tpoceOnxey Kat TovtTo emt Tacw (—xKat) KaTexAecev Tov lo. &v 
(7) gvAaxy. The absence of the second «xa: is Coptic 
confirmed only by X*BD= 6b de Eus, against rest and syr. 
How is it that on so many of these occasions NB desert syr 
for copt if copt did not influence them? N corrector supplies 
«at. Jy seems to be on the side of N* here. As regards L note 
that in Matthew i. 4 it writes Nacowy for vaacowv with sah 


1/3 boh™, 

Yeyectv (pro Leper) NBL (892) b e copt 
Enpadap (pro Exywhan) NBL (a bce) bok (sah) 
Iwvap (pro lwvayv) NBI 604 al" ¢ e copt 
Mevva (pro Mazar) NBLX 33 157 892 ¢ copt 


Merra@a B* is not copi, both versiois having Marr. 
but it could occur from graeco-copt where Medea, Mevva, 
Marr. are set one below the other.) 

Nadap N*B Sod™* sol. c e sah [non boh] W-H 
Sada (pro Sadpov) N*B sah bohk®™ syr sin (et syr cu sin 
in Mati[noncopt]) (To Tisch only aeth was known. Add sah 
and boh*"°.) 

Adpew (pro ApwadaB) Sah and some, boh™ aasetnt. But 
sah boh do not omit auiwadaB outright as B does alone; sah 
substitutes anraee as N* which please note. Aecth Adam 
Aminadab, Boh has Aminadab. W-H follow sah. 


. Kawau NBL* Sod sah boh aeth W-H 
. laper NB* al q aur sah {non boh] W-H 
iv. 4. 


—aXXd em ravte pnuatt Oeou NBULW sah bok alig [non omn 
habent multi] only. 


. Navapa NB*= 33 [ron Paris”) e Orig sah [non boh] (A* 


vatarat) 


. OTL ETL ToUTO aTeoTAaX. (pro oTL E19 TovTO amecTar.) NBLW 


fam 13 67 (604) Paris” only (a lait [non d e f q]) but compare 











t Cf Matt. i. 12 cedadmar B k (syr). 
Q 2 


vi. 17, 


18. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


the form of sah xe ftraxetTitnooet vap energ,w8, 
and the manner of buh: xeowH! ETawTaovor cokeda. 
rns TouSatas (pro tys Tadtdaas) NBCLQR 157 892 Paris’ 


sah boh syr sin tev tovdaiov W 


. Kas axove (pro Tov axoverv) NABLWX fam 1 213 892 


Paris” c copt aeth arm 


. Order: dora Sv0 BW 22 892 Paris” a ¢ sah boh syr 


‘ contra rell, Om So &* W-H follow B in text. 


. -avta NB 604 Sod" ¢ boh [non sah] W-H 
. ae Suvapis xupiov nv eas To wagPat avtous Most, but NBLA 


and W Paris” Cyr*® change the last word to autov altering the 
sense and construction. This is not found in boh, but is in 
sah: “that the power of the Lord was being (there) for 
him to cure.” No others change (except Sod*). 

I may say here that if sak or boh had been following NB 
we would find a different state of things in these versions at 
v..5, v. 17. But if NB consulted both versions (as seems 
abundantly illustrated in these notes) then we have the only 
good reason for the wavering agreement of NB together now 
with beh now with sah, and of the agreement of X or B now 
with one version and then with another against each other. 

Again, in v. 20 we have another —avrw (following «crev), 
[as at v. 5 (also following et7ev)], omitted by NBLE 33130604 - 
Sf 92? vg sah, but boh which omitted at v. 5 does not do so 
here. In fact boh adds “to the paralysed.” Had boh been 
following NB text it would have omitted here as well as in 
v. 5, and had sak been following NB text it would have 
omitted in v. 5 as well as here in v. 20. See below at vi. 18. 
+ohus (post oydos) NBLW fam 1 892 Paris” syr sch pesh 

sah {non boh] 
evoxyNovpevot (pro oxhovpevor) NABL 1 [non 118-209] 157 273 
Paris”. See bok. In connection with what I wrote just above, 


’ this is quite interesting, for first of all A (Alexandrian) joins the 


group. Then upon turning up boh we find enawtT 9,622Ko 
is the word used! (sah different neT2x0K>, eRod = also 
Acts v. 16 Balestri edition). 

Note that at Acts v.16 oxyAeupevous is read by all Greek mss. 
Turning up doh there, we find quite a different expression 
NEAr MH ET SHG ATEN MiMita TaKkakapTon. 

Can we now doubt that evoyAovpevos came from 


ENACT S,C2RLKO and not vice-versa ?t 





+ A still more subtle borrowing from sah is done by N‘alone in Luc xviii. 5 where 


substitutes mapevoydew for rupeyery of B and all the rest. Consult Horner's note in sah 
as to COTES, DICE meaning “ addeth trouble.” 





B IN ST, LUKE’s GOSPEL. 229 


Forms of oxyde are nowhere else used. It is thoroughly 
Lucan, and a dwaf dey. of his in the Gospel once, and in 
Acts once. 

Both oyAew and evoydew are used in the classics, and the 
dictionary gives away another secret, for under oyAew we find 
“More usual in its compounds.” 

Hence a change from oA. to evoya. is far more likely than 
the accusation tacitly levelled against poor long-suffering 
“ Antioch” of changing evoyd. “of the best Mss” to oyA. Bt. 
Luke gives this the lie direct in Acts. 

The Latin in Luke is verabantur, and in Acts veratos, with 
vezabantur by d p gig Lucifer. 


The Coptic of Acts eT pnw = cruciatus, veratus (Peyron p. 373) 


Lue Vii. 
viii. 


xi. 


1. 


5. 


6. 
19. 


43. 


36. 


37. 


TQ ERRKO affictio, cruciatus, poena (Peyron p. 259). 
Note that «as before eOspazrevovto omitted by NABDLQ is 
also the coptic manner here (boh and sah). : 


exaéicev (pro avex ) B Sod'™ soli=e Iren™ (sedit). Cf. sak boh 
a pev (pro o pev) BW sah [non bok] 

avta (pro auto) B 16 21 273 sah [non boh] 
emt metpav (—THv) B Paris” boh (indef. article) 


Tmapeyeveto (pro mapeyevoyTo) BDX d 50 71 273 Paris” bok 
(definitely 8rd pers fem sing) (sah) 


—tatpos mpocavadwcaca Tov Biov BD sah syr sin [non cu] 


hier®e 
. akouods pov & BT! (? Habet tov) sah sols 
. >exBarwv edwxev vo Snvapia = BB sah ‘solt 
. — lS TOY OLKOY B sah soli 


Besides many illuminating passages (such as Luc ii. 48/vi. 26, 
viii. 45, ix. 62, xi. 11 12, xvii. 19, xxiii, 50, some ander another 
head, ‘‘ Solecisms ”’) note 

+e (ante tn actpary)... B Paris” sah boh 

-Ts NBLT' fam 1 fam 13 157 604 
Paris” against all the rest syrr Jatt and arm. This is one of 
those square divisions where D d abandon all sympathy with 
the Alexandrine group. This omission is no more “ neutral” 
or “pre-syrian” than I am a centaur. The Greek group 
above is one and stands out in all its loneliness. What has 
become of the coptic then? Well, if seems to me that the 
lack of tic is simply due to the coptic which generally says 
a pharisee to express such a thing. Sah here is ac 
awhapicasoc and bok Hxeowdapiceoc [Horner has no 
remarks on —71s in the above Greek Mss] and this caught the 
eye of the parent of NBL Paris” etc, and led to its being 
dropped in copying. There is no sense in conjecturing an 
addition here, ev S¢ tw AaAncat epwta avrov Papicatos being 








230 


Luke 


xi. 53. 


54. 


xi. 26. 


47. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


quite sufficient. rcs is therefore part of the text, and it is NBL 
who drop it per incuriam, and there is no “ pre-syrian” text 
about it at all. Soden follows Egypt with omission. 

It looks very pretty and ‘‘neutral” I admit: verse 37 

gaptaatos followed by ver 38 6 & ¢apicatos, that is indefinite 
followed by definite, but cop¢ has an indefinite and Greek has 
not. And zs therefore is not out of place in verse 37. 
Here occurs a very serious difference. For the ordinary Xeyovtos 
Se avtoy tavta mpos avtovs NBCL 33 Paris” substitute 
cakerOev e€eXOovtos auTtov. This is against all Syriacs 
and all Latins and all the rest of the Greeks. It is apparently 
shared with or derived from the Coptic only. 

There is no exact parallel, but after the close of some of the 
parallels in Matt. xxiii., chapter xxiv. opens «as efeAP wv o 
Inaous ewopevero amo Tov tepov Kat tpoandOov ot pad. avtov 
emidekat autw tas otxodoyas tou tepou (= Mark xiii. 1 cae 
EXTOPEVOMLEVIU AUTOU EK TOU LEPOU. ays 

Is it possible that NBCL 33 ‘Paris! copé are right and all 
the rest wrong? The six authorities cited are rightly but one. 
What about the other sympathising cursives fam 1 fam 13 
28 157 604 892? Have they all been corrupted by this 
abominable Antiochian or Constantinopolitan recension, while 
shaking themselves free from it on so many occasions? Is it 
humanly possible to conceive this? Or do not NBCL 33 
Paris” merely represent some untoward effort of Hesychius or 
another to bemuddle Dr. Hort ?}t (Soden follows Hort.) 

For observe the same process in verse 54; 

—xar Cntovvtas NBL fam 1 239 Paris” copt aeth 
~—wa xatryopnt@otw avtov NBL 892 Paris” copt aeth syr sin. 

It is quite of one recension. But really, are we to believe 
that all other copies have parted with sanity and conspired to 
down the truth ? 
amnxvuv (— eva) N*BDid ff, 1 sah boh (owsxrage 
more copt) but opposed by all else including WY Paris” 892 
604 and all minn latt rell syr omn arm aeth Eus™. 

I cannot rank this even under attempted “improvement,” so 
I place it here. 





zB (with NT’! ¥ 33 348 892 Paris®’ only) wishes to read execvos Bis 0 





t A study of the Diatessaron arab is worth while in this connection. Section x11 
opens with Matt. xxiii. 84/89, interposes John xii, 42/50, then proceeds with Luke 


xi. 58/xii. 8. 





The language here of Luke xi. 58 is Aey. 38e'avrov ravra mpos avrous and not | 


xaxebey e£eAOovros avrov. But after continuing with Jo. xii. 86/41, it proceeds with 
Matt xxiv. 1 ‘AnD wHeN Jesus went out of the Temple.” A diatessaron in Greek 
so constructed might account for a scribal error here, the wrong place being taken up in 
copying. It seems the only clue. 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 231 


SovA0s o yous to OeAnua Tov KUptoy avTou Kal py ETOLWAcas } TOLNTAS TO 
OeXnua avtov. ia 

This 4 for znde finds its counterpart in sah: 

NEAKPLA AE ENTACErAne EMowuUwW MAMEqxoeic MNC- 
co&TerR RLTICGEIpE- .. Boh opposes with owog, (one MS o-wae) before 
“prepared not” and ovvog, for ynde. 

I believe NBT 33 348 892 Paris? sah to be utterly wrong, and if we 
want the “ shorter ” text we have to go to LW 13 8” Jatt syr Cypr which 
give us xat uy eroruacas, omitting unde or  morneas ; or to g2 which omits 
the whole! Consulting W for control we find that that new MS goes 
with L for the “shorter” text and again opposes B, while Paris” again 
supports B. 

But cat py eroiwacas n Totnoas strikes me as opposed to the usual 
N.T. sequences, and cas jun erotpacas pyde waoas of the mass should 
be right. 

Luke 

xiil, 9. exo to peddrov ex Se pnye. Matter of order by NBUT 33 (69 
non fam) 892 Paris” with sah boh, against the rest of Greeks, 
and against Latins and Syriacs and arm. 

14. +hor: (ante «£) after the Coptic manner (sah doh) with only 
NBL Paris” 892 and two Latin vg against the rest. 
This is mentioned here as it follows xiii. 9 so closely. 
Doubtless the coptic reacted here on NBL and not NBL on 
the coptic. 

xv. 12. 6 de Scethev avros tov Biov (pro nat Siethev avtots tov Brov) 
SABL Paris’? 892 boh sah. This isa place which bears out 
my contention that coptic influenced NBAL and not that sah 
or boh felt the influence of NB. For observe N° feels the 
influence, not N*, and is joined by A, as well as BL. All 
others are against this except Paris®’ which here follows, but 
W opposes with the other versions and all latt. Here is a 
clear example of 1V-H (no syllable in their margin !) following 
an Egyptian recension, and nothing to do with “ pre-syrian ” 
at all. 

(xv. 21. BL = copt order. See under “ Order.”) 

The point which I make above (at xv. 12) happens to be illustrated 
further and immediately after at :— 

xvi. 1. where B* alone writes o:xovoyove for o:xovoyov. Did not his 
eye wander to the coptic where the accusative ov does not 
show? The termination is oc, the word being transliterated 
from the Greek and appearing ftovcorkonoxxoc both in sah 
and bok. 

I can offer further immediate corroboration of the 
assumption :— 
3. oxamtety ove toyvw KAI emaite atoyvvopat. This xae is 





232 
Luke 


xvi. 15. 


XVii. 


17. 


26. 


1. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


unknown to the Greeks except to B [not followed by W-H! 
who divined something wrong here] but is definitely read by 
boh and sah and aeth, but not by the Latins. The Syriac 
here +diatess opposes the Latins however joining B (again 
a square division between syr and laf). Syriac influence 
might here be attributed to B, but I think the previous 
context will bear me out in attributing it to Coptic. I have 
never seen this pointed out before, and submit that it goes 
a long way to show Coptic influence on B, which if the proofs 
offered are considered sufficient, destroys B as a “neutral” 
type, especially when the apparent Latinisms are taken into 
consideration at the same time (see ante). 

Another commentary offers in this chapter: 
B writes alone or: to ev avOpwme vynrov (for ote To ev 
avOpwrots vynrov). The point we have not yet got is 
whether sah or bok is influencing B. Well here all sah 
(known to Horner) have av@pwrois, but Horner’s boh text, 
following the boh AC,*T'HS, has “in the man” ey Hen 
TUpWwArt, Dot rtipweer. That is the only support for B®. 
The syr has plural, and the old syr “sons of men” or ‘‘sons of 
man.” W-H do not follow B. Soden adds no other witness. 

A further commentary is offered immediately after at :— 
xepatay peav a change of order by B only sak (ow qwas, 
flowuw ts) syr, while boh omits pay (= osKEpea most, 
owgwaAg, some). The omission in boh led to the change 
of order perhaps, while B consulted sah. 
Again a commentary offers here. In the important sentence 
Kat emt Wagt Tovrois petatu nHev Kat UL@Y XaATha peya 
eornpixtat NBL Paris’ substitute ev (for ems) with bok 
and att”, while sah expresses differently: ‘But after all 
these there is a great gulf fixed,” and syr ‘‘ And with all these 
same things a great gulf is set.” 
Order: ta cxavSara pn edOev So NBLX Paris 892 e (sah) 
only, and I claim that this is more likely due to sak on NBLX 
than the converse, for all others oppose with un «Adew 7a 
sxavSara including it and Origen Chr Dam, so that here 
with W-H following NBLX e we have not even restored the 
text of Origen. 





Same verse Any ovat for ovat Se by NBDL tt (except f 1 vg) = also 
coptic (60h and sah). 
xvii. 19. —» miotis cov ceowxe ce B*! cum sah 6/9. 


23. 


These and these alone. Comment is unnevessary. 
order: sdov exer 9 Sov wde B? Paris” boh 
wou exer kar Sov whe = & sy cu sin 
Sou exet wdou woe L 





B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 233 


This place is in a grand muddle, but the others place wée first, and 
as to B*, Tischendorf says, it originally read wie...wde (in the photo- 
graphs one can see nothing). The fact remains that B* is nearest to bok, 
while the sak Mss all vary, and may have influenced B*. 


Inke 


xvii. 33. 


Xvili. 29, 


xix. 8. 


23. 


26. 


40. 
xx. 9. 


Note. 


Thus 85 reads cee retard RH Tal 


lid ,, OasMiand HK 9A NAS 
70, =QRRTEIARA  H DAR NA 
G4, CUARTNEIARA HK O28 Nal 
Sl, GYOseTeland H eaunal 
89, CRRTEIenA HH OAR TH 


25 4, CYRRTAT 
while in the same verse —a77A@nte pnde of B fam 13 [157] 
seems to correspond closely to sak. 


oa 8' av (pro Kat os eav) NBLY 69 245 892 Paris” al. 
perpauc bohttes BFS 


. +9 (ante pia) So N*BDR Sod” 1 69 Paris*’ and bohDEHJO 
. Kat OL aeTor NBL Paris” min paue b d [contra D*] boh” 
. ETLovvayOncovtar (pro cuvay.) NBLQ Evst 19 cf. sah 


Jin “ will be gathering fo it.” 
Order: 7 yuvaixa 7 abeAdovs 7 yoves. NBL 892 Paris” sah 
boh against all others. 
Order: pov twy unapyovrwy NBLQ fam 1 Paris” bringing 
the possessive first with coptic. (157 does not do so here, but 
on several other occasions; see below.) 
Order: pov to apyvptov only NABLY 33 157 {** 892 Paris®’ 
Est 48 and the coptics against Latin. These points should 
be noted. I will be told about other coptic sympathy that of 
course it was NB which influenced the coptic and not vice 
versa. I do not think so. In some places community of 
origin is clearly indicated. In many others, as here, it is to 
be observed that it is more than likely that a reflex action of 
the coptic manner on NB is in question. 

Notice here W yiov 70 apyvpiov pov. W* first wrote pov 
To apy. and then cancelled pov init and added at end. N also 
has this reduplication. 

Almost immediately below we come across further close coptic 
sympathy. NBL fam 1 892 Paris” @ omit yap with boh and 
sah. Yet the rest and syv cu sin have the copula, and other 
Latins and Lucifer +autem, 

—avtots NBL [non min] copt Orig W-H Sod txt 
xpovovs (~tkavovs) B* (non W-H) with bok mss BDA,E 

FILO 26 (see Horner notes in sah vol., not clear in boh) 

This is immediately followed in B® at xx. 10 by «ae xaipwo 


(-ev) with Latin, whereas boh have distinctly xa: ev xarpw. Hence, if 








234 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


bok? had been following B® in ver 9, they might have adopted a different 


expression. 


I say this to guard against the retort that the boh mss° 


reported above were perhaps following B®. (Aliter expr. aeth: et moram 
fecit venire. | 


Luke 


. xx. 40. 
42. 


xxi. 36. 


xxii. 7. 


19. 
20. 


22. 


yap (pro Se) NBLY 33 36 57 108 213 Paris” boh sah. 
(The rest vary and @ nec amplius). 
autos yap (pro xatavros) NBLR(Q) min pauc ef 157 892 
Paris” 1 boh sah Cyr against all others. 
katisyvonte (pro xatakiwOnte) NBLCW)XY fam 1 33 36 
57 157 213 892 Parise” sah boh aeth syr hier, against all others 
and against syr dat and Tert™. 

As Orig is not extant here, I prefer to attribute this to 
coptic influence, and should certainly follow Tert who ts 
extant here, not to speak of the body of Latins and e repre- 
senting Cyprian, and not to speak of syr cu sin pesh which 
oppose syr héer. 

It will be noticed that the former group known to Tisch and 
Hort has been added to by W («aticyvoate) VY and Paris”, 
but they are rather birds of a feather. Yet I would give the 
additional testimony all the weight desired, and still say 
that the strength of the position remains with the Latt 
and Syrr who are completely agreed except for syr hier 
whose defection rather emphasises this as an unnecessary 
“improvement.” In any case a change from xatakiwiyre to 
xatisxvenre is far more probable than an attempted emenda- 
tion of xatisyvonte to KatakiwOnre (the Latins express in 
two words). 


ev 7 ber Overbat to macya Most, but BCL and D 892 [but 


not & rell] omit ev. Not so laté, so the omission is ruled out 
from Latin sympathy. The ev is desirable here. Upon 
reference to the coptic we find ev present but transferred quite 
to the end of the verse (it so appears in Horner's translation 
of sah but does not do so in his translation of bok although 
the expressions employed are identical in both versions). The 
coptic says ‘this which ”—as if reading #—“‘ is numbered to 
slaughter the passover tn.” 
— es (ante rnv euny) B" Of sah boh. 
Order: xae to wornptov wcavtws §=NBL Paris” bok sah syr 
hier (non al.) W-II Sod txt 
ott (pro Kat) NBD*LT 157 2*'sem Paris®™ boh sah (against 
all others incl. W and syr hier). a d Orig om. 


Bl init. -evme Se o xvptos BLT Sod!*” sah boh Bas 1/2 syr sin 


36. 


[contra syr cu et rell omn et contra WY 892 Paris’ 
Se (pro ovv) NBLTD Sod™ Paris’’ Laura’ '* ¢ d sah boh 


Luke 


xxii. 37. 
39. 
57. 


Rxiil. 


68. 


6. 


15. 


17. 


29. 


32. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 235 


zo (pro ta) RBDLQTW Sod” (B é G) 1157 } d sah boh (syr) 
—xat (ante ot ua@nta) B*V Paris” Sods sah aeth (boh***) 
Order: ove o8a avtoy yuvae (pro yvvat ovx oa avrov) 
NBLTXY 213 Sod*' [non al. minn] sah boh arm only, 
against the rest of Greeks, all Latins, and syrr. (— yvas 
Det T. 
— pol N aToAVENTE NBLT Sod bok Cyr (fam 1 157 
Paris” sah habent jo) 
—yadtNatay (post axoveas) Only NBLTT" boh (against sah syr 
lat and the rest) Sah is very definite AG TYAAIAATA, and 
892 Paris” do not omit nor WY. If NBLT managed to 
influence boh, how was it they did not influence any others ? 
Not even Paris” which has been running very close to them 
for many verses past. Surely it was bo which influenced 
NBLT. If NBLT influenced boh how was it they (or their 
common ancestor, for they have indeed a common ancestor) 
did not influence sah? W-H follow this small combination 
for omission. I would not dare go against the beautifully 
emphatic character of the phrase in sah and syr cu sin. Soclen 
adduces only one new witness, 6371, yet excludes. 
avenepapey ‘Yap avTov mpos nuAs NBEKLMTI minn pane f 
130'** 892, Paris” (—-yap), sah bok 
aveveuwya yap uuas Tos avTor Rell et tt aeth; syrr arm 
(avrov mpos autor) 

This is rather an interesting commentary on the previous 
reference. The change of sense is so complete here, but 
witnessed to most carefully by both coptics. In fact sah says 
“ But Herod also found nothing against him ; for he sent him 
to us...” while bok follows the Greek method: “‘ But neither 
Herod also; for he sent him to us...” Observe that aeth 
opposes sak boh. 

Om vers ABKLTT'IE (A here replaces &) 892 Sod'*™ @ wy? 
sah boh [non omn] Dd syr cu sin aeth place the verse after 
verse 19. 
Six boh Mss and the correctors of four others have it. 
+az (ante cout) NBONT'X 892 min'® [non Paris] and 
so sah boh [non W™ ] 
xaxoupryot dv0 NB W-H only as it would appear. The 
sentence runs a little more smoothly thus: yovro Se Kaz eTepot 
xaxoupyot Svo, instead of: wyovto S Kat etepor dv0 Kaxoupryot, 


but sah boh support NB. [Soden adds nothing new]. 


36. mpocepyopevot ofos mpoadepovtes avr» NABC*L Paris” only. 


This involves the omission of «a before ofos and is supported 
by ar and bok (sah also avrw per’ ofov, minus mpoadeportes 
avtw). The absence of xa: between the two participles 


45. 


49, 
50. 


CODEX BAND ITS ALLIES, 


seems a little rough and contrary to N.T. usage. The 

inference is coptic influence. Observe A joins the group. 
This is immediately followed by : 

— yeypaupern NBLT' Sod®*” sah boh (contra mundum) 

—ypappacw EAX, xat Pow. at Ep. &™ [Habet 8] BC*L 

Paris” sah boh [non omn] to which add a syr cu sin, but against 

all else and Cyr. 


. emttizoy auto egy (pro eretiwa avtw rAeyov) NBC*LX 


213 Paris”? 892 bok" [non sah] (syr xat edn) 


. -0 tnoovs NBLT' Evst 26 e* sah boh contra rell et contra 


Chr: (‘oe pavexator—emthaBopevos Tov xwpiov Tovtov pac ”— 


evmev 6 XT auny apunv...) 


. kat nv ndn woe wpa extn (pro qv be woet wpa extn) BC*LT' 


597t 892 bok [non sah]. On the other hand ND some latins 
and Orig have cat but not +8. This plus 78 is found 
however in boh oop, NE NAT OHAH NAXNE Ne, 
(while sah is me nna wae Txtico ne [sah has ve, correct 
Tisch]) and nowhere else. All the others oppose. Here is 
the “longer” text then once more in BL [not N]. It is not 
from the parallels in Matt. and Mark, and must be an old error 
from KAIHNAeWwCel, the de having remained after xa: was 
introduced, and being copied as cat qv dy. If this be dis- 
allowed, there is no alternative but a bohairic influence on BL, 
becanse bok could not get it very well from the Greek as he 
must have looked well at the place, for 9,Hax is introduced in 
a different order, viz. between wpa and exty, the woe being 
apparently dropped (as in sah'™ aeth and 157 y**' vg), but there 
is room for a great muddle here, because the word for wce: 
(=fa or Mars) is very like the word for wpa.t BL boh here 
are a unit against the rest. How it occurred must be thought 
of in connection with the other coptic sympathy, which 
fluctuates between boh and sah. As ® does not share the 
addition here the place will bear more study (Cf +7é at 
xxiv, 29). 

The passage zou mAtou exdeTovtos of NBL would follow 
naturally here, but so much has already been written about it 
that I forbear. Nor have I touched at all on Lukei. 28, ii. 14, 
33, vi. 1 48, xxii. 43/44, xxiii. 34, xxiv. 42, as these passages 
have been discussed before, and ii. 9 I merely record above. 
kat ae yuvatces B Paris™ sah [Soden adds nothing] 
ayados Sexaros B et sah soli [Soden forgets this] 





t This 597 (Venice Marc i, 59) in Gregory’s Emendanda is not to be confused with 


579 (Paris®). 


t Hence bite, TIta's, the moment or the hour. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 237 


Juke 
xxiv, 82. we eXades qui ev Ty obw (—Kat) ws Sinvoryer nut Tas ypadas. 


This is often the Coptic method. The omission of the copula 
is observed in NBDL 33 syr hier and boh sah only (copt omits 
the second ws as well). The passage is not without interest 
for B maintains the two clauses (although without copula, 
= copt) while Origen ELEVEN TIMES, with a be el Amb Aug 
syr cw sin, omits the first ws eharer. 

44. ev Tw vopw puvoews Kat TOLS TpodnTas xat Yradpou. SoB 
and Paris’. ev tots mpodntas says N, wat ev Toes 
mpopntais Li, and these three groups agree in one, but, proving 
certainly that it was not sincere copying, they disagree in 
detail, while the supporting authority, namely sah-boh, has it 
yet differently thus: ev (Tw) vopw pwvoews vat (lit, peta) TOUS 
tpogmtats Kau (lit. pera) TOUS Waruats. 

Only the coptic adds tors before yarors. 

W-H manage out of this slight difference to slip in the 
reading of B alone! They say nothing in the margin, and 
they have just rejected B’s single readings (avavra in this 
verse, +x«az in verse 39, tz for Seats verse 38, aryy:xav verse 28, 
avtovs for xat avtos verse 15), and behold it is not B at all as 
a whole which we are getting in W-H here, but pure W-H 
intuition which is the ‘‘ neutral” text! 

47, «at KnpvyOnvat emt TH ovoyaTe avTov peTavotay ets (pro Kat) 
agectv apaptiov es Tavta ta Orn NB sah boh, to which add 
sym veh Tagainst the Old Syriac]. So that W-Ht text is 
satisfied to follow NB copt alone with “syr vg” [ew not 
extant, six not known to W-H]. Svden has no new 
witness. 

This is in a different class from others placed under “ Improvement,” 
for here NB have two cases of es following each other, and to them on 
this occasion it is not apparently abhorrent nor to W-H nor to Tisch who 
follow. It is possible that all the other authorities, including syr vet, 
revised here to avoid this repetition; but it is also possible that the coptic 
is responsible, for Paris’? does not follow NB here, nor does our new 
witness W agree with them, nor V. 

Tisch justly remarks that in St. Luke can be found both expressions 
Barticua peravotas ets adecwy (iii. 8) and Sovvar petavoray tw isp. Kat 
ageow (Act v. 31), the former supported by Mark i. 4. 

The only thing to be said here about Coptic is that NB are agreed 
with C*LNX 33 218 and the coptic, against the rest, in following this in 
the same verse with apEayuevo: for apEapevov, again against Paris” and W, 











+ W-H text es, marg. xa. Souter reverses this: xa: text, es alternative reading 
at foot. Soden retains xa in his text. Yet if NB sah boh are wrong here, why does 
Soden think them right at xxiii. 6, 88, 43, xxiv. 82? 


238 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


and’in the next verse (48) Se is omitted by sah bok with NBC*L, while 
eote omitted only by BD Sod’ d Aug (aeth boh) is more striking. 


Latin (and Coptic). 


. There are a good many of these combinations with the small 
group containing B, but they need not be dealt with specially. Some 
places appear however clearly to have influenced B. For instance : 


Luke ¢ 
xvii. 24. —ev ty nuepa avrov BD 220 soli inter gr cumabdein, 


et sah (aeth) W-H. Cf. Merx vol. 11. p. 348. 

xviii. 4. pera tavta d¢ BLQT* 892 Paris”. This against all other 
Greeks including % and D pera de tavta, but the Latin is post 
haec autem a fig vg, postea autem e (while bed ff, 1 omit 
autem) and both coptics say seenenca mar ae. As Tisch 
points out, in Luke x. 1 peta d¢ ravra there is no change 
among the Greeks. We have to go to Matt. xxvi. 73 for pera 
pixpov Se. Westcott and Hort religiously follow BLQ. 

This I believe however to be very ancient Latin influence 
from a Graeco-Latin, because in the same verse the tendency is 
strongly Latin against Coptic, for NBLX Hipp 157 Paris” 892 
withabcef fil pw vg say ovde avOparror instead of xas 
avOpwrov ove of the rest of the Greeks Bas Chr Dam. And 
the coptics both tum the phrase without expressing an ovde 
[a few boh do 7/24}. 

I may further point out why I think the Latin is old 
enough to have influenced the BLQ text here. Three 
verses beyond, at: 

7. BLAQ, this time joined by NW 892 Paris” and (e), write tev 
exXexTwv avtov Tov Bowvtwy auvTw nuEpAas KaL VvUKTOS, whereas 
ab filgqr simply omit avro (or the “poo avrov” of the other 
Greeks Mac Bas Chr Antioch Damecd f Iren™ Tert™™), As 
a matter of fact, if we want to choose between mpos avtov and 
avtw I should strongly incline to follow Tert and Iren' who 
are strengthened by Basil Chrys Damasus etc and the other 
fifteen Greek uncials and all the cursives [D* = fowvrov 
avrwy, d qui clamant ad eum. Tisch omits to notice d@ for 
ad eum]. But the omission may be the more basic (syr does 
not omit, and sah has eTugy €9,pat Epod). 

4. e€ovBevouvtes (pro e€ouBevovytas) B115 259** dg“ al, No 
other Gk uncials. In connection with what I wrote above, 
note that, against the imperfect of most Latins (but ¢ 
contemnunt, d spernent) a has spernentes. Possibly therefore 
B got this from such a Gk-Latin. W-H do not follow. 
It is found in Tregelles’ margin. 


Luke 4% 
xviii. 10. 


11. 


xxil. 10. 


48. 


49, 


64. 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 239 


But it seems very difficult to separate Latin and Coptic sym- 
pathy. For here B with (D)RX 71 218 says eis (—0) papioaros 
kat 0 eTepos tedwvns, Which corresponds exactly to sah 
ova oshapicatoc Me Mkeoss OTTEAWNHC TE, 
whereas boh mpiowar meoehapiceoc Ne Nikeoeat 
MEOVTEAWHEHC NE. 

Unus..unus, unus..alius, unus..alter of the Latins of 
course does not help us without articles, but the conflict 
between bof and sah, where N and the mass follow bok, and 
B with only DRX agree with sah in suppressing the first 
article, is really noteworthy in view of what has gone before. 
These little places it will readily be seen are quite interesting 
and worth attention. W-H have els in text, and 6 in margin. 
Another conflict between N and B follows. 

B with L only and N°& fam 1 213 892 Paris” (Sod adds *) 
e vg arm Orig Cypr reads of the Pharisee: orafers ravta 
mpos eavtov mpoonvy.t instead of A(D) efe: otaders mpos 
eavtoy tavta mpoonux. and thus also a goth syrr Bas 
Antioch. 

N* with bef filgq rand sah aeth omit mpos eavtov. This 
omission might be taken for the “neutral” text if you will, 
but, would you believe it, W-H follow B Orig and Cypr in 
their text (with pos ceavtoy ravta in their margin), and not a 
word about omission! Now the conjunction of e and Cypr with 
B sah and Orig is clearly Egyptian, Africa and Greek-Kgypt 
combined, while Basi? with the mass oppose, and the bulk 
of the Latins omit. D d = caOecavroy and seorsum. Therefore 
W-H produce an Egyptian text again once more and not a 
“neutral” one. And there is nothing “ pre-syrian ” abont it, 
since the old syriac goes with the mass against B. 
els fv (pro od) NBCLY 2*sem Paris” (X ev n) laté sah boh, 
but against ov of fifteen uncials including D and d “ ubi”; 
(157 distinctly ovov), ov cay five remaining uncials (perhaps 
from Mark ozrov ear). 
tnaous Se (pro o & wncovs) NBLTX 157 892 Cf latt Jesus 
autem, and boh yHC ae Nexac (sah jexe ic; sak 
Nexe ae ic). (Paris omits copula with sah and syrr.) 

That the conjunction with Coptic and Latin is not fortuitous, 
consult :— 

[xupte] —avtoa NBLTX [non R, male Soden] again Paris” 
71 213 892 sak boh tq 

(rw xuptw D et domino d; Dno Jesu aeth) 

—ervmTov avtov to mpocwmoy Kat NBKLMTI copt and 








+ W shows Egyptian preference for evyerat and Paris” nvxero (for mpoonuxero). 
x x TPoonVx' 


240 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Luke 
some Latins. I enter it, ag erumroy was apparently known 


to Marcion here as well as to the rest of the opposition. f 
Add iv. 5. — 0 S:aBoros es opos undo» NBL lat mult sah (boh) Cyr 
contra rell et syr . 


Traces of Syriac. 
ny ii. 19. wavta ouvetnper ta pnuata (—tavta) B 77 129 225 a (of 
syr sin) Soden does not bother to add the cursives. 
51. wavta ta pnuata (—tavta) N*BDMWa e (of syr sin sch 
pesh arm) 
ii. 33. Ecpwv B y'*? [male Sod i] b (d) vg syr W-H 
v.18. +avrov (post Gear) BLE 157 syrr sah boh aeth [W-H] 
29. per avtou (pro pet avtwv) B fam 1 22 Paris” diatess (hiant 
syr cu sin), xa7’ astov 69 [non fam] 
vi. 26. —ot watepes autwy B 604 syr sin sah [non boh nec rell verss] 


ix. 2. —rovs aodevers B syr cu syr sin Dial W-H 
x. 42. paptay B 1 Paris*’ 2 syr W-H 
xi. 46, xae adtoe +upers B alone among Greeks with Paris” Sod", 


Lait all apparently e¢ ipsi, although a Latin may exist 
with ef vos ipsi. But this dyels practically replaces atro} in 
the syriac (ods}o). W-H do not add. : : 

Cf boh (aliter expr sah). : 

xvi. 3. oxamrew ovx isxvm KAI emasrew atoyvvoyat. All syrr and 
diatess (no latins) and B alone of Greeks. But B is supported 
by both coptics and aeth (see under Coptic influence) and I 
am inclined to attribute this «ac to coptic influence on B, 
the coptics having previously imbibed it from a Graeco-syriac. 

Notice both coptic and syr say otay peracradw EK rns © 
orxovoutas in the very next verse. (xvi. 4) with NBD min 
aliq (aro LX 892), while the majority of Greeks are content 
with the partitive genitive. W-H have ex, but ignore +xas 
of B. 


+ These things must be weighed carefully. Take for instance soon after, at xxiii, 2 
it is a difficult question whether nua» belongs after Ovos {“ evpoper Siacrpeovra ro ebvos 
[nyor]”). It is added by NBDHKLMRINY min®™ it vg sah boh syrr arm aeth, but 
withheld by AEGSUVWXI4A min plur MarcionEpiph bis Bus Cyr Thdt. Here Marcion 
adds xa: xaradvovra rov vopov kat rovs mpodytas. Observe however not rov vopoy npav 
even here. (This addition is followed by a good many Latins, most of whom say 
“legem nostram,” but in Marcton nya is absent in both places). 

Notice that W does not have nywr, so that the omission now goes back in our Greek 
* documents to rv century. Notice that 157 Cyr (1 g) have roy Aaov nav for ro eOvos quwr, 
possibly from xxiii. 14, which is an interesting control reference because ipwy is absent 
there. Vv 18/14 ron: weddaros 8 cuveadecapevos tous apytepers Kas tous apyovras Kat Tov 
aoy etrevy pos aurous TWpocnveyKaTe pot Toy av8pwrov TovToy ws anootpepovra Tov Aaov Ka 


ov eyo... 





B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 241 


ak: 
ih 5, &Sacxwv cal ods tys lovSaras eat apkapevos...XBLTT' 
Paris” only with syrr, vg codd omn [praeter W] add xaz, 
against the rest of Greeks, all Old Latin [praeter aur] and 
sah boh. 
This is a very peculiar place. 
Right on the heels of it comes xxiil. 6 (see under Coptic) 
where NBLTT' and boh only omit yadsAaay after axoveas. 
Sah xe TYAAIADAIA does not, nor syrr, nor latin, nor 
the rest. 
xxiv. 138. Order: ev avty ty nuepa qoav Topevopevoe NB syr Eus W-H. 


NB Syr Latin against Coptic. 


iii, 14. re motnowper Kat nuets (pro xa quets Te Tot.) NBC*LWE 
1 [ron fam] fam 13 892 Paris” bce f Ff 9.1 ¢ syr sah (om Dd 
Evst 7) contra boh et rell 

Add perhaps 

iv. 40. eOeparevey pro cOeparevcey BDWY [Sod non Lake] 21 

vere* Sod'46 latt syr W-H'™ Sod Orig? 
Xxill. 2. +«at (post S:8ovar) NBLT 106 892 Paris” Sod? '?*! only, 

plus it [except a c] syrr arm W-H and Sod txt against reil 
with sah boh. 


Syr Latin and Coptic. 


xxiii. 39. ovye ov ec (pro e cv ee) NC*BL (BL omit Aeywr, XC* do 
not),a b ff 7 (nonne), sah boh (xe ag Mook an me N5CC) 
syr cu sin hier [non sch pesh] arm aeth W-H et Sod txt 
contra rell omn Sod™ et Paris®™ et Orig'™. 

Om e ov ec usque ad fin vers D de. 
xxiv. 24. ~—«az tert. BD [non min] latt syrr°™" sah 1/2 boh"* W-H [nil mg] 
38. ev tn xapdia (pro ev tary xapdiats) BDabede fl gat vg™® 
[hiat r,] sah aeth W-H (Dial ets tyv xapdcav) (Tert™™” in corda) 

I group this here, although the syrr are all pointed for the plural 
to-day, because it could so easily be basic in an ancient unpointed 
copy. 

A single letter also in bo of similar shape for 1 makes the plural 
(all boh Mss) against the singular of sah. The Latin evidence is so large, 
it is strange to see all syrr (g cs] h as Horner has it) marked for plural. 
The Latin evidence for the singular must go back very far. 

The history of the text is thus deeply involved at a tremendously 
early date. See full exhibition of evidence in Part IT. and note syr sin 
(Lewis ed. 1910). 

R 





242, CODEX B AND ITS ‘ALLIES. 


Syr Coptic against Latin. 
vi. 26. —0t matepes avrov B 604 sah syr sin (—o1 war. Sod™) 
Habent & rell et latt boh syr pesh arm aeth. 
“xvi. 3. oxamtew ove toxvw KAI ewartev acoxvvona: So B alone of 
. ‘Greeks with sah boh aeth and syr (sch pesh cu sin [non exstat 
hier]) W-H refuse this reading. 

17. xeparav pray = Bs sah syrr (om puav boh) W-H™ [Negl Sod 

7 sah syr) 
poav xepatay —& rel et latt. 


é Examples of Synonyms. 

i. 6, evavtioy NBC*XY 73 239 892 Paris” [non Sod™™ "4; om. 
Sod*] Cyr W-H & Sod tzt against rell and Orig. 

76, evertiov (pro mpo mpocwTov) kBW Sod™ Orig 1/2 [non minn] 
W-H [non Sod]. 

ii, 3. eavrov (pro dav) NSBDL WEY 2” Paris” Hus W-H Sod tzt. 

' > Of Matt xiii. 24 ev tw aypw avrov —-Plur (eavrov B) but ev ro 
. io aypo D Eus™, 

57 ev ty ia marpids §=NZ 892 minn" Perse eg 

“Sod [non W-H'"*] (pro ev 9 ratpibt: avtov reli). 


Homoioteleuton. 
Consult xiv. 1 —rtwy (post apyovrwv) NBK 892 [non al.) [W-H]. 


. Form. 
xii. 28. apgrater B*! et W-H tzt [nil in mg] 
See xviii. 12. avoSexateve NB et W-H [nil mg sed non minn.], and other 
passages referred to elsewhere but not separated i in this Gospel. 


Luke 


GRAMMATICAT, CHANGES. , 
Change of Voice. 


xv. 17. “els eavrov Se eXOav edn (vel evmev) mocot pecOior Tov Tmatpos 
pov Te ptacevovety aptav.” 
mepiccevavrae BAPt fam 1 [non 131] 94 Paris” Evst 2. 
J Sod*353 443. Tisch adds “ cat®X 18 schol? * alior 1? 
meptacevovow & and all the rest including W. 
This is clearly an “improvement” confirmed by the “ fidus 
Achates” Paris®’, but disclaimed by the other ‘“‘ good” cursives 
and rejected by 131 of the 1 family. (Hvs¢ 2 occasionally has 


+ P and also A are found in this neighbourhood largely with B in some questionable 
places, 


Luke as 
vil. 7. 


viii. 50. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 243 


curious and untrustworthy readings.) Such an occasion could 
not be missed of emphasising a knowledge of the proper voice 
to employ here. 

The Latins add nothing, but the syr emphasises by “ quibus 
copiosus est panis.” 

I cannot conceive it possible that an “ Antiochian”’ revision 
has been so complete as to displace an original mepiscevortas 
from all our Greek Mss except the handful named above, for 
there would be no reason for the change; whereas the change 
from. mepeccevovowy to meptocevovta: is a “nicety” which is 
quite in line with the sense. From what I have observed 
from continuous study of the characteristics of what are 
known as our important cursives, others besides those named 
above would surely have preserved weptacevortar. Neither N 
nor W nor 604 nor 892 agree to change meptacevovew. W-H 
follow BAP, but not Soden here. 


Change of Mood. 


tabntw (pro iaOncerat) BL Sod" and these ALONE of all 
our authorities, but followed not only by Hort, but also by 
Tisch; and not only by Tisch and Hort but now also by 
von Soden in his text! Thus does the Egyptian reading (for it 
is Egyptian) commend itself with this slight support to the 
moderns, and for the self-same reasons. Soden only adds 
“bo?” and neglects sah. Boh*” go with BL and so do all 
the sah codices. See Horner in Sah, p. 120. 


Imperative. 


motevaoy (pro migteve) BLE [non minn vid] W-H. As to 
this being a real preference, consult viii. 20 29 in this chapter 
where B= are alone together, once for a change of order, 
again for a change of preposition. 


Infinitive. 


As to wore and ets TO. 


. wate KaTaxpypvicat autov NBDLW Paris” fam 1 13-69-556 


[non 124] 22 33 604 892 237"P" J5geM Sod 178 26 cone Orig 
W-H Sod 
els To KaTaxpnuucat avtov Rell ef V (om. 346) 
( Soden’s “3 omits wore, and his critical fam* has mpos to.) 
Note that the infinitive follows, which, while not unusual 
after wore,t looks as if Orig were improving ets 70 rather than 





t Cf all uss at Matt xiii. 32 wore eAbew ta merevva. 


R 2 


244 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Antioch changing an original wore to es 70. More suspicious 
because in coptic the Greek word wove is transliterated. It 
looks as if eis ro had been translated pwwcTe in coptic and 
had then reacted on NBL, but as D joins, the matter can be left 
undecided. Note however that Winer (Eng. edition p. 400) 
says ‘In the Byzantine writers the use of ware with the 
infinitive instead of the simple infinitive is peculiarly common.” 
Winer then refers (pp. 400 and 743) to the use of ws erocpacar 
in Luke ix. 52 by NB (alone with a d 1 q) for wore erospacas 
of practically all (sah omits wore’ and ws: simply ecoR Te sah, 
while boh 7 Mss has pwevre, 12 Mss pwwcae, 2 MSs pwe 
with NB). Tischendorf does not admit ws into his text 
but leaves wore, remarking “at ws nimis emendationem 
prodit.”. 

For es ro in the Gospels generally, observe the remaining 
cases Matt. xx. 19 evs to eurarEar, Matt. xxvi. 2 ets To cTravpo- 
Onvaz, xxvii. 31 es ro cTavpwoas, Mark xiv. 55 ets To Oavatwcat, 
Luke v.17 es to sacbat, Luke xx. 20 es to wapaéovvar, in no 
case changed by any except in Mark xiv. 55 where D (and 2”*) 
substitute wa Gavatwoovow as the latin, and in Guuke xx. 20 
ew to Twapadouvar is changed to wore mapad. by NBCDL y** 
[not by the other min which acted so in iv. 29]. 

Ess ro is not found in ‘St. John’s Gospel, but is to be 
observed in Clement's 1st Epistle. | 

I submit that wore is a correction by Alexandria for es 70, 
and not that wore is original in Luke iv. 29, xx. 20. 

As regards es to outside the Gospels, note: 


. es To e€arerhOnvac Changed by NB only, to tpos ro ‘daa. 
. ets to petaky caBBartov ANadnOnvat 


. €l§ TO ornpexOnvar 


iii, 26, iv. 11, iv. 16, viii. 29, xv. 16, Eph. i. 12, James i. 18. 
els To ewar; ef. ets TO wy etvat 1 Cor. x. 6 infra. 


. eg TO AoyerOnvar 

. Els TO yeverOar also vii. 4; also Phil. iii. 21, but some omit. 
. els TO UTaKoUVELY 

. tg TO Kapropopnaat 

. es To TapatnAwoas 

| Phil i. 10 ets to Sontpaterv 

. ets To BeBatwoat 

. es To Tepicoevery all and Orig except B 57 Sod‘ which omit. 


. €tg TO ea OreLy 2 
. 6s TO Erbe KaL TLvELY 
, ets TO paryery 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 245 


i. 4. es ro SuvacOar quas —_— changed to wa to by FG only (ef. lat) 
vii. 3. es To cuvaTroGave 
vill, 6. es To Tapaxadecas nuas ,, » wore by3 35 115 d* al. paue. 


ili. 17. es to Katapynoat 


Eph. 

cs i. 18. es To edevar changed to wa odate by FG only (cf. lat) 
* 4, 93. es 70 avaduoas Most and Clem (—es DEFG; ~ees 

ieahess, to Antioch) 


ii. 16. ess To avaTAnpacat 
ii. 2,18. es to otnpcEac 
5. ets To yrovar 
10. es To ee (ets To evdevar, 17 only) 


1. 5. es To Katakiwdnvar 
i. 6. evs To aroxadudOnvat 
10. ets To cwOnvat 


Ll. ets to mictevoar 
Heb. 


li. 17. ets To thacxecOat 
vii. 25. es To evTuyyaver 
vill. 3. es To mpoodepery 
ix. 14. ess To NaTpever 
28. ets To TOA aveveyKety apapTias 
xl. 10. ess To wetaraBerv 
Xi. 21. es to wonoat 


(i. 19. es To axouvoat...ers TO NAANTAL) 


And with negatives: 
Acts 
Vii. 19. es To pn SwoyovercOar 
1 Cor. 
ix. 18. es To wn Kataypncacbat 


x. 6. €us TO pun etvae 
2 Cor. 
iv. 4. es To wy avyacat 
2 Thess. 
iil. 2. eg To wn Taxews carevOnvat 
Heb. 
xi. 8. es To wy Ex Patvopsevwr To BrETOpEVOY Yyeyovevat 
1 Pet. 
ili, 7. es To wn eveowTecOat 
iv. 2. ets To unKete avOpwrray emOupsais 


Here are over fifty cases of es 70 with almost no variation among 
Mss. I think itis a significant fact that NB change es to to wove once 
only and that is at Acts iii. 19 THE FIRST OCCURRENCE AFTER THE 
GOSPELS END. After that they seem to accept the fact that es ro is 
Lucan as well as Pauline and Petrine, for at Acts vii. 19 they do not 
change, nor afterwards on over fifty occasions. We should ponder 
this. It seems to me to be a most illuminating study and I think the 
observation is new: as are also the inferences conveyed in the following 








246 ; CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


sections. The scribes of NB.in their N.T. copying seem also to have 
been influenced by some 0.T. phraseology which lingered in their minds. 
Observe Ta Oednpara once by N (Matt. vii. 21), once by B (Mark iii: 35). 


Change of Case. 
Genitive absolute. 


As to St. Luke we have no cases to report,-throughout- the whole 
Gospel of a single change from dative to genitive absolute, and this for . 
the simple reason that St. Luke does not use the dative absolute [if we 
except two passages, ii. 5 ovoy eyevw, and viii. 27 efeXOorrs de avtu, 
which are not, properly speaking, absolutes]. This is quite illuminating 
as to the action of the NB group in St. Matt. and St. Mark. Had 
“ Antioch ” been guilty of changing their genitives there to datives, surely 
we would see the same thing in St. Luke. I have not found one single 
instance! And it is not for lack of material. For although St. Lake is 
not partial to the genitive absolute, it is used on at least forty-five occasions 
in his Gospel. 

Luke is rather partial to nominative dpsdiutde (viii. 33, xiv. 2], xvi. 
14 ete. etc.), occasionally an accusative absolute (xiii. 16), and avoids 
genitives by using v d:dacxev as at v.17, where D substitutes (with dc e) 
avtou SSacxortos, or as at v. 29, where for of noav per avTwy Kataxetpevot, 
D (@ e) have ot noav per avrwv xataxepevov, Again, at vi. 17 for 
‘Iepovoadrnu etc. D substitutes cas adrav rodewy ednrvOoTev. Very 
frequently the Lucan expression is «ac eyevero...a8 at: 

Luke ° 
xiv. 1. Kae eyeveto ev Tw eAOew avTov 
xvi. 22. eyeveto Se avroPavery Tov mTwYor Kat aTeveyOnvat avTov 
Rvii. 11. xae eyevero ev Tw mopeverOat 
14. Kat eyeveto ev Tw vTraryety avToUS 
xviii. 35. eyeveto Se ev Tw eyyitery avtov 
Cf Matt xx. 29 xas exmopevopevwv avtov 
Mare x. 46 xat epxovrat ets leptyw nar extropevopevou autou 
avo lep. 
xix. 15. was eyeveto ev Tw eTraved ew autor 
29. nae eyevero ws nyyioer ets BnOdayn war PnPanav 
Cf Matt xxi. 10 xaz etaedOovtos avrov ets lepoc. 
Mare xi. 1 waz ore eyyfover ets Tepoc. 
xii. 66. Kae ws eyeveTo nuEpa _ 





+ Hans von Soden, in a recent unflattering review of my ‘ Concerning the Genesis 
of the Versions, pretends that I am bringing coals to Newcastle or iron to Essen, and 
that all I have brought forward is already well-known to the savants. If so they keep 
vey silent about it! 








B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 247 


Luke 
xxiv. 15. nae eyevero ev TW optrew avToUs 


30. Kae eyeveto ev Tw KaTaKAOnvar auToV 
51. xae eyeveto ev Tw evAoyew avrov auTous, 
holding this to the very end. 

Note xvi. 9 eva orav exderry; also vi. 20 xar autos emapas Tous 
ofGarpovs avtov...edeyev, where the Latins say ¢levatis oculis; also 
viii. 50 o S¢ Incous akovcas. Most it = awtito hoc verbo. 

Yet of genitive absolute we can observe the following: 

Luke 
ii. 2. qyepovevovtos Tas Lupias Kupyviov 
42, avaBaworter avtwv (all except D d ¢ aveBycav ot yoves avtou 
exovtes autov. aveSnoav Sod") 
iti, 1. ayepovevovtos wovtiov Tikatou THs covdatas (D Hus emutporevov- 
os..-.) followed by tetpaapyouvtos...gidimmou be... 
Avoanov. j 
2 15. mpocSoxwvtos Se tov Aaov Kat Scaroyfopevay Tart 
21. xa Iyoou BarticGertos Kat mpocevyopevov 
iv. 2. ovvtercabecwy avtwv 
40. 8uvovtos 8€ rou mAtou 
42. yevouerns de nuepas (Cf Mare i. 35 at mpot evvvya ALav) 
vi. 48. mAnupupys be yevouevns 
vii. 6. 789 8 avrou ov paxpav amexortos THs oLKLAS 
24. awedOovtwr 8 tar ayyedov 
42. py exovtwy avtwy amrodovvat 
viii. 4. cvrovtos Se oxAov TodAoU 
23. mAcovtwy Se avtwr 
45. apvoupevwy Se ravtep 
49. ete avtov AadourTos 
ix. 34, tavta de avtou NeyorTos 
87. xateAOovrwy avtav (all except D nareBovta avtov and d 
descendente eo; om. avtwy Paris Sod“; catedGovtt tw ww 
cr xt Sod'**) 
42. ere &€ mpocepxonevou ayTov 
43. mravtov $e davpaloytey 
57. eae Tropevopevwr avTwy F 
xi. 14. tov Sapoviou e€eAPovtos (add D tavta Se ecrovtos avrov...} 
29. tw S€ oydwv arradporlopevey 
53. Neyortos Se avTou by most 
xaxebev e€edOovTos avrov NBCL 33 Paris” W-H'* Sod tzi 
(xii. 86. wa eXOovros Kat xpoveavtos (t+au7ov A 251 Sod?) 
; Only Meth = wa ed@ovtt nat kpovoartt aut) 
xiii, 17. tavta Aeyovtos avtov (D de omit) 
Xiv. 29. Bevtos autov, and tcyvovtos -+-avrov some 
32. evs avTov TroppworTos 
xv. 14, Scatravycavtos Se avtov 
20. evs de avtov paKxpav ameyovTos 


248 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


xvii. #2. xa excepxopevou avrov 
xix. 11. axovovtay S¢ avtwv 
33. Avovtaw $¢ avrev 
36. mopevopevav Se autov © 
37. eyytfortos Se avtou (D d syr cu sin eyyitovtwy be avtwv) 
xx. 1. &8acKovtos avtov... nas evayyedfopevov (+avrou I c) 
45. axovovros S¢ mavtos Tov Naov 
xxii. 10. ecoeNOovtwv vay 
47. ert avrov NaXourTos 
53. ovtos ou 
55. (wept)ayavrwy Se (+autwy some)... nat ovveadicavtey 


(+avrwy some) 
60. ett AaXouvTos avTou 


xxiii. 45. (rou nAsou exAtrovTos) : 
xxiv. 5. eupofwy Se yevopevwy auvtwv... (D evpoBor Se yevouevar...) 
31. QaBovrav & avtwv tov aptov am avtov Dede Orig See 
, ordinary text) 


41. ete 8¢ amictourtwy avTwy ~ 

In all these cases, except where marked, there is no variation among 
Mss and no substitution of dative for genitive} May we not fairly claim 
then to have caught our hare? If an Antioch revision had changed 
genitive absolutes in Matt. and Mark to dative absolutes as inferentially 
claimed by the Hort school, they would surely have done the same in 
St. Luke. But there is no trace of it here. As for Egypt, there was 
no room for change to genitive absolute in St. Luke for he does not use 
the dative absolute. [See later again as to St. Jobn in this connection. ] 


Simple for Compound Verbs. 


Here we have a check as to NB from the language of St. Luke. 
(Cf. Hobart, ‘Medical Language of St. Luke,’ passim. See also Blass, 
‘Philology of the Gospels,’ London, 1898, p. 117.) 

vy. 2. Of the washing off of the nets. 

For amerdvvav of most, ewAvvay is used by NC*LQX 239 
299 372 Paris” W-H™ and erAuvoy by BDW 91 892 W-H"™*, 
but this seems to be an “improvement” or reflection of - 
lavabant of the Latins, for St. Luke's diction calls for 
anetauvav (So Sod). Of. atopaccev x. 11, expacce 
vii. 88 44, amodovew Acts xxii. 16. amerdvvav is peculiar to 
Luke, and NBD and the few offend by removing the amo. 
Observe that 91-299 revise. They are part of the 1 family; 
but 1 and the rest hold awerAvvav, aropacceny is also peculiar 

to St. Luke. 
xii. 20. atovew (pro anatovcw) BLQT 33 Paris” d W-H, against 
the rest with 8, D™ and W and 899, the latter doubtless holding 


+ Methodius is the only one to do so at xii. 36. 





Luke 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 249 


the true base, since aratew is Lucan, being used only by 
Luke here, and in vi. 30 in a different connection: «at amo 
Tov atpovtos Ta ca pun atrattes (St. Matthew’s language, v. 42, 
is different). Cf. further aweAmifovres in Luke vi. 35 peculiar 
to St. Luke and medical (Galen*e*), Soden wavers printing 
[az Jactover. 


xxiv. 83. nOpocopevous (pro suvndpacpevovs) NBD 33 W-H Sod (non 


W reil, non 892 Paris] but the compound word is peculiar to 
Luke (Acts xii. 12, xix. 25). Soden goes over to the minority. 
(Cf. also ovvarstec Pat Acts i. 4.) 


N.B. This matter of uncompounded verbs cannot be satisfactorily 
checked in the other Gospels, but here in St. Luke’s Gospel we have for 
control the Acts as well. Observe Soden’s utter lack of consistency. 


Luke 


Xil. 


6. 


30. 


Change of Number. 


TorouvTat (pro wwderat) concerning the wévte atpoviia. 
Only NBYW Sod" *. "5 fam 13 [non 124] 892 (a@dovtac) 
W-H Sod against the rest (Epiph™™" has both, mwAouvrar™ 
roretae; Tert™™ omits to comment on this verse). I 
cannot sufficiently emphasise that such grammatical changes 
do not show signs of a continuous “neutral” text, but of 
grammatical eclecticism, because, while fam 13 here supports, 
fam 13 is not with the changes at Luke xii. 1, xi. 53/54 else- 
where referred to in these notes. 

(N.B. wodertas is used by all [except D] in Matt x. 29. 
Why did not NB fam 13 change there? No doubt because 
Matt and Luke represent as regards NB fam 13 recensions 
“reviewed” at different times and in divers manners. So 
Boss in Matt by XB, as the coptic, in Matthew, made much of 
by Burkitt, is not found by NB in Luke.) 
emttytovow (pro emtnte) NBUT*"X fam 13 33 213 Paris” 


. Sod" (latt copt) [non V] W-H Sod. All the rest emsSyrec, 


53. 


emphasised by D and Clem with re. The Greek verb 
follows ravra ra evn, while the latin plural follows gentes, 
well indicated by d@ with quaerunt, against D opposite {yrec 
after «6vn [so that we apply this example here and exclude 
it from Latin influence]. Paris” supports emfntovoww, but 
W ercfnte. I cannot bring forward enough the admirable 
support of W in many such passages as a balancing factor 
of the iv" century in Egypt. Besides Clem and D seem 
decisive for an original singular. 
StapepesOnoovras (pro di:apeptcOncerat) followed by “ ratnp eb 
(or em) viw Kat vlos emt TaTpL* pntTnp emt Ouyarpe (or Ovyatepa) 
Kas Ouvyarnp eme pytpe (or pntepa Or THY wnTEpa).” 

The plural is read by NBLTU [non V] 59 157 892 Paris” 








250 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 

Luke 

. * LauraA 1 Hyst™0° WH Sod latt (against Tert™” dividetur !!) 

- but opposed by the rest of the witnesses. I consider this 
emphasises the character of other changes of number by the 
B tribe when we find TERTULLIAN is definitely opposing his 
own latin mss and accuses Hort and Soden of following 
Alexandrine grammatical “commutations iawead of having 
discovered the true text: 

While Paris” joins B and the few Egyptian Greeks (the 
five Evst* show their graeco-latin provenance by the plural) 
it is noteworthy that W maintains StayepecOncerat with 
sah and bok. Sak is noteworthy and perfectly definite, 
witnessing with Tert at the same period of time, for, instead 
of beginning the verse with S:apeptoOnoovrat marnp... it 
Says watnp StapeproOneerar ETA TOV VLOV aUTOV, ULOS LETA TOV 
TATPOS QUTOU. «eee 

xxi. 25. evovra: onpera NBD Sod'™™* latt copt W-H (pro earas rell) 
The presence of D in the combination here is insignificant 
as the latins all use erunt. Possibly B was influenced by the 
egovtas added in verse 24 (see under “ Order”’), but it looks 
as if this were a grammatical preference by NB and the 
coptic here clearly agrees with them. (Soden refuses evovras 
here). 
NB are sometimes divided as to this (showing that our con- 
, tention for “improvement” is justified). See: 
iv. 41. e&ypyovro Se cat Saiovia NCK Sod. 1 33 267 Orig 
et Sod** 

but efnpxeto here ABDW and the rest. Notice on which side 
Origen is found. ‘W-H are in a difficulty and place e&npxero 

in the text, but efnpxov7o i in the margin. 

Note for other examples that in coptic after oydos and such plural 
nouns in the singular the verb is in the plural number (Tisch. p. 127 on 
Matt. xx. 29 ex Schw. “in lingua Copt. numerus sing. vocis multitudo, 
furba, construitur cum num. plur. verbi).” 

That the singular verb after neuter plurals is the regular New , 
Testament usage, and not any classical revision at Antioch, may perhaps 
be illustrated from Luke xviii. 27: ta advvata rapa avOpwros ‘Suvata 
mapa tw Gew extiv, where all Greeks agree—against the Versions—and 
where the second century witness, Theophilus of Antioch, is extant mi 
confirms eorw. ; 


Change of Gender. 
Luke 


xv. 14. Aspos soxupa NABDL 1 33 1381 213 892 Paris’ W-H 
: et Sod, 
Atuos toyvpos —- Rell omn et fam 18 (vide infra) 
Both genders being found in classical writers. 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 251 


Note. At Luke iv. 25 Asuos weyas stands in all [as to W see below] 
(except fam 13 and that is divided, 13-69-556 giving peyaAy and 124-346 
retaining weyas) so that if any argument can be based at all it clearly 
accuses NABDL of changing in xv. 14, for there fam 13 remain constant 
against them for scxvpos. (In Schmidtke’s edition of Paris’ he gives 
Heyas in square brackets, which generally indicates an omission. So ¢ J.) 

In the third place at Act xi. 28 Aruor peyadny is found by NABD? 
some minn (see Sod™"*) against Acuov peyav of D*EHLP al. Chr Chron, 
so that NAB are between two stools, leaving peyas in Luke iv. 25, having 
Heyadny in Act xi, 28, and eeyvpa in xv. 14. In other words they change 
twice out of three while the other authorities give the masculine 
thrice. 

If we use W for control here we discover something, viz., that while 
that ms leaves :oyupos alone at Luke xv. 14, it actually remembers to give 
peyarn for peyas at iv. 25, where NB do not change, so that circa 375 A.D. 
in Egypt the feminine was preferred. 

xix. 87. wept macewy wy edov Svvazewv All Greeks but B and 
Paris” Meth? who have avrwy [D has tavrwy but substitutes 
ryecvouevey for Suvayewr| 

If B is correct, we are to infer that Luke considered duvasus to be 
masculine, and all the others corrected the gender for him, except B and 
Paris”, who reproduce the “ neutral” “ pre-syrian” original, before it 
had been revised in Antioch! But W-H refuse to follow B here. They 
admit therefore that B does not speak for the inspired writer at this 
place. And if not here, how much less so in many another place. 

Note. The shorter text (which perhaps B was aiming at) is found 
in syr cu sin which eliminate the yvouerwv of D (conflated by Sod" 
fam 13 to ywouevwy Svvapewv, allowing macwy to stand) and have 
nothing but wavrwr, “everything,” discarding masculine and feminine 
and employing a real zewtral expression. 

Note also, next verse 38, B seated alone in solitary grandeur with a 
unique o epyopevos o Bacetdeus in the very centre of a beautiful conflation 
{for Paris” goes with D], the halves of which are given to us by NH e¢ 1 
and Origen (0 BactXevs), and by DWA* some latins ten Greek minuscules 
including Paris’, aeth Method Tit Eulog (0 epyopevos). 


Exchange of Prepositions. 
Luke 


eg) a = Wit 
a ae ie oe ee os H (Soden adds nothing). 
xii. 54, ems dvopor (for avo ducpwr) Only NBL 64 Soa? 2o, 


Tisch adds ‘‘al.? neglexer. conlatores,”’ but this does not 
appear to be so, and even Paris” and 892 have azo (cx Sod"), 
So has W. Add for em: sah with EQPAI Ot and aeth 





252 " CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Luke . 
“towards.” So that eve is clearly Egyptian and not “neutral.” 
Yet Sod follows Hort here. 
See also i. 26 amo (pro vmo) under “Latin,” iv. 35 an’ 
(pro e&), iv. 38 azo (pro ex). 
ii. 39, emeotpeyay (pro urectpear) (N*) BE only with W Paris” 
W-H (non Sod) [In ii. 45 ureotpeyrav remains constant by all] 
vi. 28. mepe (pro vrep) of praying for those who persecute us by 
NBLWE 604 Paris” only [not 892 nor any other cursives]. 
Not by coptic (both versions exe) and opposed by Justin*™! 
Dial Clem™ Orig t Eus*, yet calmly adopted by Hort and 
Soden in their texts, without marginal alternative. It is 
scarcely credible, but it is so. $ 
Clement’s two quotations are clearly Lucan, and so are Bus 
(besides one ex Maté). vumep is Matthaean says Tisch (‘‘ vrep in Mt non 
fluct”) and he adds“ Apud Le wepe et Act viii. 15. Paulus utrumque 
saepius sed Col i. 3 eps a permu in uep mutatum, non item i. 9 uTep 
in mwept,” 

‘Let us examine a little closer. 

The syriac is circumlocutory as usual, and will not help us, The 
same preposition is used in Matthew and in Luke, and in these two 
places only does zpocevye occur in the Gospels as to praying for persons. 
(in St. John zpocevyopzar does not occur at all; and evyouas does not 
occur in the Gospels.) 

In Acts we find only one instance :— 

Vili. 15. ovrives xataBavtes mpocnuéato wept avTwv (all Mss) 
The other places are only concerned with “ praying.” 

x. 9. mpocevkacOa: rept wpav extyy of course does not enter into 

consideration. 


Turning to the Epistles, we find (the list is exhaustive) : 
Col. 


i. 3. wavrote Tepe upwv mpocevyouevor NACD°E‘KLP 
” UTEP a ” ; BD*E*FG 
9. ov wavoueba uTEp vswr Mposevxopevot Kat arroupevoe all 
iv. 3. mpocevyouevol aya kat TEpt nuwY all 
1 Thess. . 
v. 25. AdcApoe mpocevxeade wept nuwv (FGP vurep) 
2 Thess. 


i, 11. Els o nae mpocevyoueda mavtote Tepe vuwv (all; wep’ FG) 
ii, 1. To Xorov mpocevyerGe adedgor wept nuwv all 
_ Heb. 
xiii. 18. mpocevyerGe Tepe nuav all 





+ Orig seems to prefer vmep. Consult Matt. xxvi. 28 rovro yap eotty To arpa pov ms 
xauwns dcadqans to urep woAdwv... D Orig and Cyr against the rest for mept. 
t Von Soden also falls into this trap, and he aksolutely ignores the Patristic- 
testimony for urep in his notes. 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 253 


James 


v.14. cae rpocevEac@wow ex avtov (er’ all; some ex’ avrous) 
16. was evyerGe uTep adAnhov all 
8 John 
2. Ayarnre wept mavtTay evyopas all 


(Eph vi. 18 hardly applies: &:a waons mpocevyys xat Senocews mpoceu- 
XOMEVOL €V TAYTL KAipW EV TVEUPLATL KAL ELS AUTO aypuT vouvTEes 
ev Tagn TPOOKAPTEpHTEL KaL Senoes Tépt Tavrav tov ayiwv. 
Here wep: is the reading of most, but vaep is read by 
D*E*FG.) 

We find then that in the Epistles of St. Paul he used as Tisch says 
urep and wept, and the Mss are not able to confuse the issue. But we 
may note two things, first that sep. is the more frequent Pauline 
expression, and second that in Col. i.3 N and B disagree. From the 
solitary example afforded in St. John’s third Epistle we may take it that 
wept ig Johannine.t On the other hand umep and ez’ are clearly St. James's 
preference, and the mss agree. 

Thus we establish vrep of St. Matthew and St. James by preference, 
mept of St. John, and St. Paul on both sides (with wep: predominating), 
while St. Luke on the one occasion in Acts has 7eps (all ss). 

We now return to St. Luke vi. 28 and the reason for wep: of NBLWE 
Paris” } appears more clear, for wep: to them was—numerically speaking 
as to the passages involved—more familiar to the ear and perhaps 
appealed to their desire for grammatical uniformity more than v7ep. 
(The Latins do not vary from pro.) I believe in a preference here by 
these Mss, for we see NB not only in conflict at Col i. 3 over this 
matter, but there we actually find D*E®* corrected. by D*E? from varep 
to wept. It is to be noted that NB abandoned the coptic exen and 
that both coptic versions support vep in St. Luke. The alternative 
which caused Hort to favour mepe is that vaep is “ Matthaean” and 
therefore a revision by the mass in St. Luke. This is a doubtful con- 
clusion. I would prefer to allow the same latitude to St. Luke which 
has been kindly allowed to St. Paul of using either expression when he 
saw fit. 

We shall never agree on a passage like this where we have only 
one quotation in Luke and one in Acts by which to steer, until we 
establish definitely the character of our witnesses. I therefore arraign 
NBLE here for wilful change on account of their other bad record in 
such maiters. 


And I proceed to fortify my case by asking why, in a delicate 


+ Yet at John si. 50, xviii, 14 we note avOp, arxodavn urep rov Aavv. 

¢ I take this occasion to observe that on such occasions the presence of Paris” 
does not strengthen the case for NBL at all. It is a ss clearly descended along the 
same lines, and its presence only emphasises immensely the absence of other important 
minuacules, 








254 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


passage like this,f where our scales call for additional weights on one side 
or the other, we are to neglect Justin, t Dial, Clement of Alexandria, § 
Origen, and Eusebius. Origen and Eusebius and NB are very sympa- 
thetic on most occasions, yet here they go apart. And Clement is 
exceedingly definite as to the quotation being Lucan, for he uses (both 
in Strom and Paed) urep tev exqpeafovtwy and not dewxovtwy as 
Matthew. Yet we calmly disregard these Fathers because NBLW5 604 
Paris” wish it otherwise. This is absolutely unscientific. It presupposes 
that Clement was not as wise as Hort; I mean it presupposes that 
Clement did not stop to consider, like Hort, that urep was “ Matthaean”’ 
and therefore he must not use it in Luke! It presupposes that Clement 
forgot St. Luke used ep: in Acts-~viii. 15, and that mep: was therefore 
Lucan. Clement breaks free from these trammels and he tells us as 
clearly as can be that urep is correct in St. Luke. When Clement is 
backed by Eus and Origen, I think we may safely say that we can really 
venture to disagree with Dr: Hort and Tischendorf in this place and 
request that umep be restored, and eps kindly consigned to the margin, 
for the Hortian margin has nothing today opposite the place. 
The arraignment is not quite ended. I am going to show that NB, like 
Dr. Hort, turned up Sé. Matt v. 44 for instruction and “ control” as to : 
umep being ‘‘ Matthaean” and therefore wrong in Luke. 
_ They must have turned to St. Matthew, because in Luke vi. 33 
_ (parallel Matthew v. 46) they give us a reading which can only have 
come from Matthew. - i 
In Luke vi. 33 init., instead of xaz eav ayadotomte tovs ayabo- 
mowovyras upas...%B—(corrected in, or refused by Paris’)—-alone say 
kat yap eav... They have no support. Neither coptic version does it. 
Not.one single bok or sah Ms has this. The.Syriacs do not do it. 
The Latins do not do it. The Gothic does not do it. It comes simply 
and plainly from Matt v. 46. eav yap ayarnoyte tous ayatoytas 
UE ws : . 
NB retain the Lucan «ac and add the Matthean yap. 





t eps and umep were early interchanged, for Polycarp*4 Phil vi. cites Romana xiv. 12 
a8: Kat exagtov vmep eavTov Aoyoy Sovva: instead of reps of our Mss. At John xvii. 20 
W and Paris” are to be observed substituting umep for wep: secund in the phrase: od mepe 
rouroy de epatw povovy aha Kat Umep ray, meoTevoytaY ba Tov Aoyou auroy eis epe. 

t eyo 8 vp reyo evxerGe vrep Taw cxpey Yay Kat ayaTaTe Tous pio. Vas Kat 
evdoyerre rous Karapa@pevous vpiy Kar evxerOe uTEp Tov emnpeatovray vas. Tustin, 

§ Hort himself (‘Notes on Select Radgs.’ p. 131 col. 2) is not above considering 
Clement's text to be the best. Let us hear what he says. He is commenting on 
Heb, xi. 4“ paprupouvres em ros dwpois avrov tov Sov) papr. em row 3. avrov To 
“ew N*AD*17? aeth Euthal cod* papr. em ras 8. aura tov Jeov Clem. ... 

“The reading of the best «ss is apparently a primitive error, due to mechanical 
“ permutation, the true reading being that which Clem alone has preserved. The common 
“text, an easy corruption of either of the other readings, gives substantially the true 
“sense.” 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 255 


Observe further that L does not do it, nor W nor VW nor D nor 
fam 1 fam 18 28 33 157 and the rest,t and I think the case is complete. 
If the reader is not convinced then we have idolatry gone mad over NB. 
X? corrects, but not so Hort, who prints «at [yap] eav... 

, The case goes to the jury. Will the next Oxford editions persist in 
mepe and yap? t 


[As to XaBeew (pro avodafewv) in the next verse (Luke vi. 34) the case 
is quite different. Here LE, missing in vi. 33, join NB reinforced by W 
(157) 237 Paris” Sod**** and Justin. (Soden quotes Just for azoa.) 
Thus must we differentiate between the textually probable as here, and 
the impossible as at vi. 33}. 


Change of Order. 


i. 21. ev tw ypovtev ev Tw vaw autov (pro ev Tw xp. auToY ev Tw vaw) 
BLEWY 2” Paris” W-H [non Sod !] (contra reli et &) 
(-ev tw vaw 108 142 604 al’) 

iii. 16. amex. Aeywr wacww o lwavys (pro amex. o twavyns attract Aeywr) 
(S)B(L) 892 e Orig W-H et Sod (contra rell qui variant, et 
D eneyvous ta vonpata avtw eer, ef syr vet ecmev avTots, 

, Eus amexpiwaro o ti, tantum) 

iv. 29. wxo8ounto avtwy (pro avtwy wxod.) NBDLW fam 18 33 892 
Paris® (non Sod] a ¢ de W-H et Sod txt contra rell et Orig. 

v. 2. aw avrev anoBavtes (pro amo8. ar avtav) > (N)BCDLW 33 
892 Paris” Sod” a W-H Sod against the mass and coptic syriac. 
But R Sed™” bf 9, 1 g r vg omit az avrwy, and ¢ omits 
amoPavres am avTwy, 

Query. Is not —am avrwy the “neutral” text here as 
—ev Tw vaw in i. 21 above? 

vi. 42. exPareuv transferred to the end of the verse by BW fam 13 604 
892 Paris”, just this group alone with W-H Sod, against 8 and 
all the versions. : 

vill. 23. ets tyv Atpeny aveyou B Paris” a W-H™. (Om. ets 7. dep. iP). 

ix. 18, 4} aptoe mevre &*B Paris” alone with W-H™' for 4} wevte aprot. 

In Mark (vi. 38) it is «at yvovtes Aeyoucwy * TevTEe Kat vo 
txOvas (without aprot), In Matt. (xiv. 17) it is ovum eyopev whe 
€L pn TevTE apTOUS... 

But here we are helped as. to the idiosyncrasy of NB in 
Luke, for again in Matthew N* makes a change, writing 





+ Von Soden does not accept yap in his text, but gives the evidence in his notes as 
se Fys1—-2* Ja138" = BR* 604. But he has misreported my 604 (Greg. 700) for 604 does 
nor add yap nor did I say so. I reported —yap, that is — yap before apaprwdo.. 

t See also Postscript on page 483. ; 





CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


aprous es wy wevre. Clearly then it was a nicety of 
order that NB were after in Luke ix. 13 (duly recorded by 
W-H in their text 'dproe révte! and margin wévre dproe) but 
unsupported by Greek or Latin mss or by Coptic or Syriac. 
The secret is very simple and abundantly justifies Canon 
Cook’s remarks about the danger of following Origen in 
niceties, as here NB. The reason for this change of order, 
where they outdo the coptic, is that the «as dvo txOvey is 
changed by coptic to xat eyOves Svo, as also most uncials (not 
DLR) and a of Latin. It is a matter here of tasteful 
harmonising of the two orders, 
Naptot mevte wat txOves Svo 

instead of 9 mevre apros xas txOves dvo which I believe to be the true 

text, if not 7 mevre aprot kat dvo exOues. 

xi. 11. aergoet tov matepa §=B 254} W-H™ of sah. 

xii. 1. mpoceyete cavtos avo tas Cuuns Tes ETTLY UTOKpiCLS 
tov papecacey (instead of trys Cuuns Tar papicatroy 
nris eativ uroxptots) by BL Sod'™ ¢ sak against all 
others including Paris” 892 boh Epiph Tert™™ and Lucifer. 
Apart from the unlikelihood of this order, which reads most 
peculiarly, 77s Gvuys...vmoxptots without article before vre- 
«picts, it has not enough Ms support to justify W-H and Soden 
in placing it squarely in their texts. Not a word about an 
alternative reading in their margin. Imagine such extra- 
ordinary critical methods! Nothing in ‘ Selected Readings’ 
in Hort. ; 

It is true that sak supports this, but sak sees the weakness " 
of the Greek in this order and says “ the leaven, which ts this, 
the hypocrisy of the Pharisees,” supplying the article to 
hypocrisy of which we feel the need in Greek here. 

Clearly then BL Sod**" (Sinai 260)¢ e¢ represent this 
Egyptian recension, and this order has nothing to do with 
“the true text” or a “neutral” text. The other Greeks, 
Latins, and the. Syriacs are dead against it, and boh 
emphasises “ which is éheir hypocrisy.” © 

25. tes S¢ e& vnwv peptpvev Suvatar ers THY NALKLAaY avToV 
wmpocGevat pro 7. 6 ¢. um. pw. &. mpogbervar ewe thy 
qrtxtav avtov. Only B and Paris” against the order of 
Matthew (vi. 27 .all mss) as well as against Luke. Here 
again Paris” is the only new authority supporting [contra- 
dicted by W]. W-H get the order of B into their text, but 


t Von Soden forgeta Matthaei's 254, but adduces one new witness 3 871 (Sinai 260). 
+ Here is another case where the addition of this codex weakens the case of BL. 


Luke 


xv. 21. 


Xvi. 


xvii. 


xix. 11. 


xX. 


oO 


a 


18. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 257 


have the grace to place the alternative order in their margin. 
Souter’s edition goes back to the old order as does Soden. 


» OuTM@S yapa Ev T@ oupav@ e€oTat (for OuT@S Kapa €oTat EV TW 


ovpavw) Apparently only a preferential order by NBLY 33 
157 892 Sod? (Paris) W-H Sod as opposed to all others and 
versions including copt. Add for the change Y and Paris”, 
but not W. (Om. ev tw ovpavw Laura4™), 

evmev Se 0 vios avtw (avrov 209 Paris”) BL fam 1 157 Paris® 
Sod™* only of Greeks with ( d) sah and bo W-H Sod; against 
etrev S¢ avrw o vios = and all other Greeks with latt and 
syrr. (Cf. Dd). 


. eavtors momoate (pro momsate eavtos) If N*BLR W-H Sod 


(alone) are right, how comes it that not only the other 
uncials and cursives oppose but also Clem Bas Thdt; and 
Clem Chr" it vg arm aeth copt syrr Iren'™ Orig * Lert 
with the alternative romaate vu? Yet Soden religiously 
follows Hort against them all. 

Tov pixpev tourer eva (for eva TwY pL. TOUTOY) X*BLY. No 
other authority except 892 Paris” and Westcott and Hort 
and Soden. 

There is no excuse for following NBL here; it is simply 
idolatry. It presupposes that every other document and all 
the versions have changed the order. No reason can be given 
for the change. ors for one (a) and ove in NAIKOCeXE might 
mislead an eye in closely written coptic script (sah is NowA 
Rnetxoct; bok foear RMAsKowxt) but it is most probably 
hiatus which offended NBL, viz. the collision of vowels in 
oxavdadicy eva. Perhaps Sod? (— tev pixpwv), a Sinai codex, 
has the secret and was derived from the parents of RB. 

See xv. 4, xxii. 50 under “ Genitive before the noun.” 

eyyus evar lepovoadny avtov (for eyyus autov evar Tepovoadnu)- 
Only NBL IV-H Sod and against coptic. This would seem to 
be an effort at improvement. Observe MQ 157 fam 1 and D 
which fluctuate here. 
Reyou n uva cov xupte (for Aeywr Kupte 7 pa cov) Apparently 
an improvement by NBL 892 Paris” W-H Sod only against all 
others (except Sod'*8*" # arm which omit «vpce). Possibly 
cupte stood in margin of an ancient exemplar and XBL put 
it in the wrong place. Mrs. Lewis has correctly observed that 
many corrections in the old papyri (things which no doubt 
the ssopfwrjs corrected) were misinterpreted by the ancients 
(hence what Merz calls ‘‘ Wanderwérte”). Observe xix. 25 
—xupce B* sol. Often in St. John & omits «upue. 


. Kat ettay AeyovTes mpos avtov (for Kas etmay Tpos avTov 


Aeyovres) NBL fam 1 Paris” Sod** ¢ fil vg W-H Sod 
8 


258 


Luke 


* xx. 10. 


19, 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


against most, but CD 63 64 d ef q sah boh arm syr aeth 
omit and fam 1 omits «a: extay. Hence the ‘“ shorter” text 
is with them, not with NBL, which W-H follow. I would 
like to know by what name the critics would call this reading 
of NBL. (Von Soden adduces a new witness § 371 [Sinai 260] 
with eXeyor auto). 

ot Se yewpyor eLarrectehay avtov Serpartes xevov So only NBL, 
against all others and versions: o: de yewpyor Se:pavtes avtov 
ekar. xevov. I can see nothing favourable to this reading of 
NBL, which W-H and Sod adopt; indeed there is a collision 
between Secpavres and xevoy which seems intolerable. Being 
thus by far the “harder” reading it might be thought that 
there was revision in others, but none of the versions indulge 
in this. Some of them repeat avrov twice, but always “ beat” 
before they “‘send away.” Indeed we cannot follow NBL in 
such things. If they really represented a basic, neutral, original 
text, we might even follow here. But I think enough has 
been said aiready to quiet this ghost and put it aside for ever. 
Nothing could be clearer than the parallel in Mark xii. 3 
eat AaBovres avtov edeipay Kas ameatethav xevov. Hort and 
Soden fly in the face of this, Souter is fortunately more 
intelligent here, but what of the other places where NBL 
combine? Are they to be followed there too? [Von Soden 
adduces nothing new beyond Paris*’.] 

The previous passage is followed here by a conflict between 
S and B. 

N and most with latt syr sah having o: apycepers Kat ot 
ypaupates while B with A(C)KLMNUWII e goth arm 
and boh aeth has ot ypapparers nat ot apxsepers. (Notice latt 
sah with &, and bok e with B.) If we want a primaeval. 
“neutral” text we should perhaps follow sah™ and Marcion 
who omit altogether! W-H Sod however follow B and boh 
here. 


32 fin. kat n yurn areDaver NBDL min pauc [non verss] W-H- 


Sod. Does not agree with Matt., but agrees with NBCDLA 
min pauc and a b (c) ffi sah 1/6 in Mark. 


33 init. 4 yer ov ev tn avacracee Only BL 892 Paris” W-H 


and Sod, thus supplying 4 yurn. This comes simply from 
the change of order at the end of the previous verse “xa: 7 - 
yuvn ameBavev. 1 yuvn ovv,” the necessary correction not 
having been made by BL. The other cursives avoid this. 


xxi. 1. Baddovras ets to yalopuraxtov ta Swpa aview NBDLXY 


fam 1 fam 13 33 157 218 248 Paris Sod'*3 d ¢ syrich pen bier 
Orig W-H Sod against all the rest, against syr cu sin, against 
both cuptics arm and aeth and against Basil, and against all 








B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 259 


Luke 
other Latins. Origen is bere very precise, and we undoubtedly 


have his order. But is it right ? 

I only mention this here as it is so strongly against coptic 
because we flop over to them (without D d e) at: 

xxi. 4. —rov @eov NBLX fam 1213 Paris” syr cu sin hier sah boh 
[non aeth = tov xvpiov] W-H against all the rest, and against 
Latin syr°** and Orig Cypr Basil. Here Soden holds 
tou @eov. ‘ 

Now both places in NB can hardly be right. In the one 
W-H follow Origen, in the next they oppose him, strengthened 
as he is by Cypr. Basil both times goes with the mass and 
Latin. In the first they oppose the coptic, in the second 
they go with it. In the first they oppose sy7 cw stn in favour 
of sy »=®, In the second they favour syr cu sin and oppose 
syr® 4, This does not seem to be scientific. 

ll. kat xara torovs (pro «ata tomwous xa) NBL 33 Paris” 
LauraA ™ [ — wae 892 Sod43"], This change of order rather 
changes the sense. NBL would read: 

ceropor TE peyadot Kat KaTA ToTOUS X. Kat d. instead of 
ceopor TE peyadot KaTa ToTOUS, KaL A. Kat dr. of the 
mass. 

The latter is supported by all other Greeks, Latins, and 
Syriacs.t Tisch cites “cop” in support of NBL. It is true of 
boh, but sah opposes with “ Great earthquakes with famines in 
places and pestilences.” W-H Sod follow NBL bol, and no 
doubt wrongfully, for in the same verse, showing they were 
editing : 

ibid. oBnOpa te kat am ouvpavou anueta pey. writes B alonet with 
1 [non fam] and W-H tect. 
hoSytpa TE Kat onpeta peyada am ovpavou write NL fam 13 892 
Paris’? Laura % Sod 11216 217 gid (sah) (beh) 
W-H marg Sod tzt. 
hoBnOpa te aw oupavou Kar onpera yey. write D d tt syr cu 
Orig. (syr.) 
PoByntpa (poBnOpa W) te xat onueca am ovpavoy pey. write the 
mass of Greeks. 

The order is extremely contradictory, so much so that poor 
aeth leaves out az ovpavov, and B and NL are not agreed, 
while Origen goes with the “ Western” text! 

W-H calmly follow B in their text, with the reading of NL 
copt in their margin, and ignore Origen. In ‘Notes on Select 








+ Syr sin conflates (against syr cu) ‘and there will be great earthquakes in various 
places and pestilences in various places.” 
$ See Luke xv. 4, xxii. 50, under “ Genitive before the noun.” 





260 


Luke 


xxi. 24. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Readings ’ they cite this verse, but only for a disquisition en 
the addition at the end of [? xas xerpeoves which does not 
exist in the Greek, but is found in some latt and syr cu 
[against sin] and Orig'™. 
kat atxuarwric@ncovtas eis ta eOvy travta (for Kat aty. es 
mavta ta eOvn). Only NBLRYW 124 [non fam] 892 Paris™ 
Laura’ 1 sah boh and so both W-H and Soden. ~ 

Is it conceivable that in all such places sah boh followed 
NBLRY (LRY not then in being) or is it not far more likely 
that the definite coptic order, with tHpove last, influenced 
these Mss? They are all thoroughly ‘‘ Egyptian’ as shown 
elsewhere, especially R. Now observe what happens at the 
end of the same verse. Tt is an addition and does not properly 
belong here, but we will place it here for illustration : 


24 fin, Instead of wAnpaPwow xatpor eOvev (as practically all and 


xxii. 42. 


45. eu 


Eus bis) B alone says wAnpobwow nat exovrtar xatpot 
eOvev ; closely followed by L 892 Sod’ arAnpwOwow xarpos 
kat ecovrTas xatpo eOvev, There is no other support but 
boh [non sah] which agrees with the form of L. 

W-H place the B reading in their text in square brackets. 
Sod adopts that of IL in square brackets. [D d@ omit xacpor 
cOvwr. | 


Why should all other authorities but bok drop xaz ecovtar ?? * 


I submit that it comes from .boh (seeing the influence of 
coptic order earlier in the verse) and that it definitely fixes the 
date of bohairic behind B. 

(In this connection note xxi. 25 init’ eaovtas of NBD 

Sod** W-H [for earas rell et Sod trt] for bok uses the same 
form e~seqyuumti just used previously in 24 for the addition 
common to BL and doh in verse 24. From ver 25 this ecovrat 
probably crept back, but curiously enough Li uses eazae in 
verse 25 contra NB. ) 
TovTo ta Twornptov (pro To worTnptov rovTo) XN (N* rev7e to 
motyptov rav7e) BDLQT Sod 157 892 Sod! 25 (both at Sinai) 
Evst 48 49 2'* Ht f Ff d aeth sah (boh) against all others and 
Paris" and against Orig Tert Dion Bas Dam, yet followed by 
W-H and Sod. (Tisch forgets to put sah boh with XB etc.) 
Paris” forsakes B here. Sod misquotes §** (w"), 

eupev Kotpmpevous avTous (pro eupev avtovs xo.) NBDLUTY 
min perpauc [non nov. Soden, non W Paris] W-H Sod and a 
“ dormientes eos ” against all the rest. 

This is a kind of accusative absolute (not referred to by 
Winer or Blass). Hence, I take it, this change of order as in 
the genitive absolute efeXMovros avrov. The change here 


seems interesting and merits attention. 





Luke 


xxii. 71. 


xxiii. 


XXIV. 


8. 


38. 


1. 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 261 


In Matt. xxvi. 40 the expression is evpey avtovs «aGevdortas, 
xxvi. 43 madw evpev aut. xad., Mark xiv. 37 evpeoxes avtous 
xabevdovras, xiv. 40 evpey avtous Tad xaGevdovtas. Observe 
that in Matt. xxvi. 40 L (only) changes the order to kadeu- 
Sovrtas avtovs. This seems very significant. 

TL eTL eXOpREY papTuplas Xpelay (pro TL ETL Ypelay eYouev 
paprupias) BLT (252 Paris) W-H and Sod tzt against & 
and all others. 

e€ ixavev xpovav Bedwv (pro Oedwv e£ uxavov) NBTTI'X fam 13 
(157 Laurat ™) Paris’ 892 Sod ¢ W-H (cE txavov tov xpovou 
597 ‘Emendanda’ Greg) (e& txavov xpovov W). The order here 
in some others is rather confused, but we oppose sah boh and 
most. It seems again a preference like the genitive before 
the noun [see beyond]. (€& txavov Oedwy W teste Lake, and 
Sod without knowing it; see note as to 6 6.) 

o Bacirevs tov JovSarwv ovtos NBUT' Paris” a W-H Sod 

(D 124 de ff +eorw) contra rell et contra Orig. 


. anny cot AeyH (pro anv reyw cor) BC*LT' [ron minn] pers 


arm W-H Sod tzt (contra &, contra rell omn, ef Patres permultos) 

Cf B alone at John x. 1, x. 7, and xiii. 21 vw reyo. Cf 
W 174 (Sod’”) alone at Matt. xviii. 19 vzev Aeyw, and note 
vutv eyo at Matt. xxi. 27 by MWAITIA fam 13 71 al. paue. 
Evst 48 b ce fia h q vg™4 and Origen bis, and note Origen”. 
This appears to be the PERSIAN method. Soden does not 
follow in Matthew but does in Luke. , 
emt TO pyna NrOov (pro NAG. emt To pynua) Only NBLT' 124 
Dion Eus 2/8 W-H and Sod txt against all others and Teré 
allud. and latin and syrr and coptics, and Paris”. 

I may say here that in such cases (see also particularly 
xxiv. 7), if sah or bok had been founded on NBL [instead of 
sah boh influencing RB] some trace of such orders would 
probably be found. Not only is this not the case, but at the 
end of this verse there is an addition in sah of edoyfovto Se ev 
eavTars THs apa aToKuAcEl TOY AGov found only in DT' d and ¢ 
(see Mark xvi. 3). 

Further than this, the omission of cat ties cuv avtas of 
NBC*L 33 124* lat boh Dion Eus does not occur in sah which 
has the clause with Paris” and the rest. 


. TOV viov Tov avOpwrov ore Set (pro ote Set Tov vioy Tov avPpwmTov) 


X*BC*LT' @ only with IV-H Sod, against N°C? and all the 
rest and Aarcion (apparently quite certainly) and Tertullian 
and coptics (both ; Horner's English order in lok is misleading) 
and syr. 


13, ev autn Ty HEPA NoaY TopevopEvoL NB syr aeth Hus 


W-H [non Sod} against all others. 


262 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


ei: 49 fin. e& vious Suvapuv (pro duvauv e£ vous) Only NBC* L 33 
Paris” Hus Cyr"* 1/2 W-H and Sod tzt. 
This looks like a ‘‘ nicety’”’ of Hus opposed by all others, all 
Latins, sah boh aeth, all syriacs arm Cyr™* 1/2 Chr Thdt 
ete. Seg ante about such changes of order. 
I would like to notice that Paris” while agreeing ete 
absolutely disagrees with the changes of B in verses 47 
and 48. 

Nore. I ask particular attention to the omissions of Soden’s codices 
at Mount Sinai, where XB vary the order. These younger codices 
probably represent the old exemplar with additions in the margin 
incorporated by NB in the wrong places. 


-: Imperfects (taking the place of aorists or historic presents). 


iv. 40. eOegazrevev (pro eDeparevaev) BDWY¥? (Sod) 21 v“t** Sod™* 
latt syr (Orig prob) W-H and Soden'™* who refuses the two 
following examples. 

vy. 28. The imperfect nxodovbe: (following xatadrov) of BDLWE 

. 69 (contra fam) 604 892 [non Paris] a W-H perhaps comes | 
under this head. There is at any rate a noticeable preference 
at times in Alexandria for the imperfect over the aorist. The 
other authorities including N write yxoAovPncev, and I regard 
B’s imperfect as an attempted improvement. I do not believe 
-the others would have changed nxoAovOer if it had stood here 
originaHy. Sod®® has nxoAov@noev with the majority. 

ix. 34. ewecxiaber (pro eveoxtacev). also comes under this head. It 
is. read by NBL 157 Paris” [non 892] Eust 47 x Sod®*” ~ 
W-H, and again @ comes to join us of the Latins (see else- 
where as to a and B*). 

(As to choice of expressions hereabouts cf. ix. 35 exAe- 
Aeypevos for ayarntos.) » : 
49. exwrvouev (pro exwAvaazer) NBLE 157 Paris” a b ¢ 1 
: W-H Sod (etiam NBD®LA Mc ix. 38). 
xiv. 16. ezrotes ( pro erounaev) Only SBR fam 1 [non 118** 131] t 
W-H Sod against the rest and Clem Orig Eus'* Bas Tert and 
Latins. Surely W-H might bave spared us this graphic 
touch! (They have no marginal note at all.) The phrase is 
avOpwros tis errovet Sevrvov peya(v), and emoret would hardly 
have been removed if original. Remember the preference given 
by Alexandria so often to the imperfect. (emoteecev Sod). 


Lute 


+t Von Soden adduces no new witnesses for eae, yet he places it in his text, for 
the imperfect appeals to him (see elsewhere) ard he is merely falling a victim to the 
Alexandrian “ use’’ as others have before him. Yet he only selects 5 out of 8 of the above. 








Luke 


xxiii. 18. 


47. 


As to 
x. 19. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 263 


(Matt. xxii. 2 emoroev is the reading of all, but the others 
were not accommodating to Matthew at ail for it is clearly 
seen elsewhere that in St. Luke XB and the Egyptian group 
are under the influence of a special recension.) 


. eTNpwTwWY (pro ennpwtycav) B (fam 13) 157 Paris” Laura4 ™ 


only with a again and WV-H™%, 

avexpayov ( pro avexpatav) NBLT et T! 4 124|non fam] 157 
892 Paris’? Sod'! (no others) « Cyr W-H Sod txt against all 
the rest. 

edokafe ( pro edokace) NBDLRYW [non Sod") 892 Paris” 
Sod ¢ dq (e fl) Cyr W-H Sod tet [Soden wrongly excepts 
Paris” and cites Q (« 4)]. 

[Once xxiii. 36 NBLT’ Sod! * 1-H (alone) change everactov 
to evevatfay and this is discovered to have the support of sah. 
Soden baulks at this. ] 


Sebaxa (pro Sibwpe) NBC*LX min pauc it?! Orig etc. Sedwpc 
is supported by Justin Iren™ Hus ¢ d and syrr who confirm 
the Greeks headed by D, and I suspect NB of ‘improvement ” 
in a contrary direction here with their dedw«a. 

Observe Tert™* lib: “ Quis nunc dabté potestatem caleandi 
super colubros et scorpios.”’ 


[In St. Luke there is a noticeable absence of the use of the Historic 
Present (see Sir John Hawkins, Horae Syn. p. 24: “only in vii. 40, 
vill. 49, xi. 37, 45, xxiv. 12? 36? in contrast with Matthew 78, 
Mark 151”) so that we are prepared for but moderate revision by the 
Alexandrine school; and here we see that the critics contented themselves 
with the substitution of some imperfects for the aorists.] 


Genitive before the Noun. 


In two cases to be noticed in St. Luke NB come in twice (T is 
wanting in the first place) and L only the second time. 


Luke 
xv. 4. 


xxii. 50. 


tts avOpwros e& vuwvt exw exatov mpoBata Kxat aTrodecas 
e€ avtwy év (pro & cE avtwr) NBD FW (fam 1 fam 13) 
157 Paris” e W-H Sod only [opposed by L all others Sod’*? 
and Method Bas") 

Kat evratatev eis tus e€ avTwr Tov apytepews tov Sovdrov (pro Tov 
SovAov tov apytepews) NBLT fam 13 [non 124] 892 W-H 
et Sod (non W non 157 non Paris®’ hoe loco, non latt) 


Now this is quite an unusual position for the genitive in the 











t 892 actually has ris e£ vywr avOpwzos, while retaining (e sil Harris) ev e€ avrav. 
This is a further commentary on such preferences. 





264 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


N.T.t Consult Winer, Eng. ed. p. 193 and 239. On p. 240 he says: 
“That this position of the genitive may belong to the peculiarities 
of a writer’s style (Gersdorf p. 296 sqq) is not in itself impossible (since 
particular writers use even emphatic combinations with a weakened 
force) but at all events cannot be made probable.” This is said at the 
end of a paragraph on the proper emphatic use of the genitive preceding 
the noun. But Winer neglects our two examples and they do not belong 
to the emphatic class (such as 1 Cor. iii. 9 Oeov yap ecpev avvepyot, Geov 
yewpytov, Peov oixosoun eote). But these are generally followed by a 
nominative (Matt. xxvii. 83 xpaviov'romos, Eph. ii. 10 avrov yap ecper 
moinpa, Ja. i. 26 rourou paratos 9 @pnoxea, Rom. xi. 13 e@vev amoartodos, 
Acts iii. 7 avrov at Bacets xa ta odvpa text rec, where NABC Bas Sev 
Lucif oppose the order; see also Rom. ix. 5) and therefore are to be 
considered as a classical usage. Cf Herod vi. 2 rnv lwvwy thy nyeuovqy 

. tou mpos Aapetov worepov, Thucyd iii. 12 thy exetvav weddnow Twv ets 
nuas Sev, Plato Legg 3.690 b ry rov vopou exovtwy apynv. 

But the genitive before the noun is thoroughly Aristotelian through- 
out. See, for the nearest parallel to Luke xxii. 20, rev watplwr tov 
dpxovra (Pol 3.20). Also tév mrouciwr robs dypovs (Pol 2.8) etc ete. 

Blass (Thackeray p. 99) is not very full, He refers also to 
Phil. ii. 30 and adds one other, Matt. xiii. 33 es adevpov cata tpia, but 
there is no article there, and he says “in the same way that a word in 
any case without an article usually, though not always, precedes the’ 
genitive which it governs.” 

Blass does not refer to our examples either as far as I can see, and 
I can only regard them as exemplifying still further the independent 
‘position taken by the mss in question and as partaking of a kind 
of unnecessary revision. I certainly do not believe that all the other Mss 
‘changed the order. And it isto be observed that, whereas the 13 family 
are involved in both cases, DW 157 Paris’ and L act in an eclectic 
manner and disagree on the second example. We should have to assume 
if é& avtwy & were original that I changed it to & é& avrwy while 
retaining tov apytepews tov SovAov, and that if tov apytepews tov Sovdov 
were original, W 157 Paris” changed it while being content with éf 
avtwy év. No, I consider both to be changes made on the original text 
to conform to some idea of classical usage.t 

The truth about this seems to be that the most proper occasions 

“on which to employ this order are .when the noun or its equivalent is 


f Matt. Mc. rov 8. rev apy.; Jo. rov rov upx. dovdov a kind of halfway but classical 
house a3 1 Pet. iii. 20 » rou deov paxpofujua, Heb. xii. 2 rov rns motews apynyor. Cf Phil. 
11.180 ro upwy vorepnya rys Aecrovpyias. Plato Rep. ras rev oixetwy mpomndaxures Tov ynpas. 

} The situation in Luke xxii. 50 is a little complicated. First NBLT invite us to 
read emarafer els ris e£ autwv rov apytepews tov B8ovrov, bringing two genitives together ; 
secondly they reverse this in the next clause, and would read xa: agpeder ro ous avtov 
ro beftov, instead of xat ab. avrov ro ous ro 8eftov as the rest. 


ie 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 265 


followed by a relative. as Thucyd i. 51 af elxoce vijes al dd tév ’AOnvaev 
aitat, ay ipxye Travewy te o Aedpyou nai AvdoxiSns 6 Aewydpou. 

See also in a heading to Dionysius" letter to Germanus, éy\dcouew 
ai abrod dwvai, dy mpos Teppavov.... where avtod following ai is 
apparently not abhorrent, so that ds may follow geval. 

Observe also in this writer at the close of the letter to Germanus 
a long list of genitives before the noun, followed by a résumé of ola to 
introduce the next sentence: 

bcas dpiOuijcar Suvatar Tepi judy amodaces, Snuevoers, Tpoypadas, 
bmapxovrav adprayds,t akiwudtwr drobdces, Sofns xocpinis ddvywpias, 
énaivav jiyyemovixdy Kal Bovdevtixdv Katadpovyces Kat ta evartiov 
dtedav, nal xataBojcewv xal xiwvdvvovt xai Ssoypovt nab wravns Kal 
orevoywpias nal Tormidys OrtWrews Lropovny, ota Ta éwi Aexiov cai ZaBivov 
cunBdvra pot, ola péxpt viv Aiusrravod ; 

Observe the position of vroporiy, 

I think we may say then that in the writings of Dionysius the Great 
(fl. 200-270) we have a very good example of Alexandrian style about 
A.D. 235 [he was raised to the headship of the Catechetical School in 231] 
and that the precedence given to the genitive is considerable. Note 
further in the letter to Fabian “ray wpecButépav pot tia Kxddecov.” 
Again: ‘dv vorw S& yevdpevos tpimy éEs quepov adawvos Kal avaicOntos 
SceréXece.” 

“ uncért Bacdvev meipav AaBovoa: ‘ ras yap UTép Tacay 7 mpdpayos...” 
“npiv twas adta@v GAdous AaBEoIat.” 

Further, in “Xarpyyov jv tmépynpws tis Neldov kadoupuévys 
émicxoTos Tokews”” SOME MSS have 7oAews éwicxottos, showing a distinct 
conflict as to the best method. 

Widely separated by the genitives sometimes are the component 
parts of his sentences, e.g.— 

“xai tis laxyupas ev éavtois lates akiay Kai dvddoyov Suvapty Kal 
xapteptay AaBovtes, Pavpactoi yeyovaciw avtov THs Bacidelas wciptupes.” 

or 

8 q Ths Bacthelas exeivns rijs edpevertépas uiv petaBorn Supy- 
yeATat, al TOADS O TIS ef Huds dTedns PdRos aveteiveto,” 

or . 

“oi vow Tod yptatou wd pedpot cat THs Bactdelas abtod KoLvwYol, Kal 
péroxo: TAS Kpicews adrod,”§ continuing “«al ouvdiedhovtes alta Trav 
Tapanentwxotav aberdav tivas brevOivous tols Tov Puci@y éyxdijpact 
ryevopévous TpoceddBorto.” 





t Heb. x. 34. 

¢ Copying St. Paul's style 2 Cor. xi. 26, 2 Cor. xii. 10, The reading of St. Paul's 
letters is assigned as the cause of Dionysius’ conversion to Christianity. 

§ This is perhaps a fair commentary on the method pursued by NBLT in 
Luke xxii. 50, where they prefer in a sentence of “ pairs” the genitive before the noun 
Jirst, and in second place the genitive following the noun. 


266 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


or 3 
“xata, tov TOU Steoywov Kalpov dvaxwayv doyov.”” - 

Finally (p. 33 Feltoe’s edition) note the sentence: 

“Barepov Se tives om adtyoo tay Ovav ra eld’wra KatadiTovTes 
éréatpevay ér) tov. Gedy.” 

ta ei6wda does not refer directly to eo nay, but the words are made to 
follow this genitive, whereas xaTaXcrrovtes TA etene would be clearer to 
an English mind. 

It seems worth while to consider this at some length, because we 
must get into the atmosphere of Alexandria in the first part of the 
11" century if we are to judgé of possible idiosyncracies of the fore- 
runners of NB and T in “ papyrus book form.” f 

[Observe the use in & alone of to Nex Oev in Luke ii. 21 for 76 dev, 
and note that it follows immediately after nal éxrX4On 7d dvopa avtoo 
"Inoois. 

So in Dionysius may be éhacivad the use of Lextivrer immediately 
following xadoupévqv. . The sentence is: “emi tovtas éxékevoe judas 
amerOeiv eis Kodunv wrnolov tis epyyov Kadoupérny xeppd. aitav Sé 
éraxovoate Tay Um’ audotépwr AcXOTwv as UrepynpaTtiaOn, 

(But Justin Martyr supplies us with the closest ‘parallel: gua ro 
ava8ivat abtov ard Tod ToTapod Tov lopSdvau THs pwvis alta NexOeions - 
0.65 pov el ov, Gyw ohuepov yeyévyynxa. Tust'® .)] 

But perhaps a good counterpart of this use of the genitive may be 
observed in Thucyd i. 56 trav yap KopwOtav mpaccdvrer bras timwpyoovrat 
avtous, tTotoTicavtes Thy ExOpay adbta@yv of ‘AOnvator Moréatdtas, 
oi oixodow emi 7 loOpioa tis Taddyvns, Kopev@iov awolxous, 
éautév Sé Evpudyous Popov trorereis, exérevov to és Tad- 
Anvnv telyos Kabereiv Kal ounpovs Sobvat, Tos Te émidyucoupyods éxTenTes 
wal TO Noumroy a déxeoPau ods xata éros Exactoy KoplrOtoe emepmov, Setoavtes 
py atoctwotw bo te Tepdixcov rePopevor Kal Hepat ey, Tous Te dAXous 
rods éri Opdxns Evvatroatiawat Eup pixous. 


Note, close afterwards, Luke xxii. 53, the preference for avtn ear 
vuLwVY 7 wpa over 7 wpa vuwv.t : 





t In this connection observe a place in Mark xiv.8: ro gwpa pou say NBDLM’*2¥ W-H 
with Latin order, and I consider, as explained elsewhere, from Latin sympathies, against 
pov ro coxa Of the rest headed by A and closed by AW & 8 with coptic and Sodtxt, Tischen- 
dorf remarks here ‘‘ Mc adamat genitivos ejusmodi substantivo praeponere.” This is an 
interesting observation, for it brings up the possible double Greek recension in Mark of 
which I have spoken, and does not necessarily apply to the Greek of St. Mark himself. 

t This is adopted by a good many: NBDGKLMRTXUY a (but X* omits vpov) 
against AESUVIAA, eéc, but does not seem for the best, as it brings 7 wpa and yn efovora 
rov axorovus together, spoiling the pair of nominatives which are distinct. Thus 

add aur eotw vue n wpa kat 7 eLovora Tov oxorous, instead of 
a@dX aurn eariy 9 @pa vpwy Kat 1 efovota Tov oK?TOUS. 


B IN 8T. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 267 


For this preference on the part of B in the N.T. see ante at xxi. 11 
where B 1 [non fam] alone have xa am ovpavou onpeia, 

Also note under “ Order” xvii. 2 rwv wixpwv trovreyv va =N* BLY 
892 Paris® only (for eva twr pixpwr TovTwy). 

See also xxiii. 8 e€ exavwy ypovwv Oedwv bringing the participle into 
this position NBTTI'X. Observe both Egyptian documents T and T’, 
which are extant together here, join NBX. 

Also observe that the change in Luke xxii. 50 follows very closely 
the change in order at xxil. 45 where NBDLTY prefer cotpwpevous avtous 
(a kind of partial accusative absolute) for avtovs Kxotwwpevous, showing 
deep grammatical consideration. The change is not made in the parallels 
except by L at Matt. xxvi. 40. 

For preference of genitive before the noun observe inter alia Matt. 
xii. 18 extexvoy cov rHv xepa by NBL Sod’ 1 33 157, against ext. tyv 
xetpa cov by the vast majority. — 

This method however with the possessive is COPTIC. 

Cf Mark xii. 37 avrov eorw vios BLT" Sod* 2°¢ Sod only out of 
six varying orders. 


Harmonistic. 
Luke : 
v.19. ravtewv (pro tov Incov) Cf Mare ii. 12 
vi. 33 init. xa yap eav (ex Matt. v. 46) 
vill. 16. —wa ot esomropevopevor BreTwat To dws (Cf Mare iv. 21) 
xi. 24. + rove (ante Neyer) NBLXE Sod” 33 157 892 Paris** 


Lauraa 4 Sod! Kvst 48 y*' bl sah boh Orig Sod tat. 

Notwithstanding what, by the canons of W-H, they should 
consider very strong evidence,f they place tore in square 
brackets only. It is clearly a theft from Matt. xii. 44 (where 
there is no variation) and they must have had a suspicion of this. 
Orig, as usual, (ex Luc vid) is responsible for re-introducing a 
false text into our schools and colleges and seminaries. Not 
the “ true text,” ag the self-constituted arbiters of the printed 
Greek Text for the last thirty years have assured us that 
they have placed in our hands. 

The character of the eclectic witnesses as grouped (without 
syr or D d) should have been decisive. 

Immediately following we have the same thing : 

25. +oxoralovta (post evpioxer) N'BCLRVEYV min™ et Sod" 

fleopt aeth Orig (W-H]}. Soden omits, although accepting 
vote in xi, 24! 


{ Compare Matt. xxi. 12, ‘ Select Readings ’ p. 15, where they speak of NBL 13 33 
b syr hier mem theb arm aeth Orig Chr, as “ overwhelming evidence.” 


268 


Luke 


xii. 22. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Again Orig brings this in from Matt xii. 44 where we read 
“Kat eGov euplo Kee ere Kal seer xNQL KEKOopN-~ 
“evov.” 

W-H again have it in Luke, ‘but j in square brackets, having 
discovered something seriously amiss with the worshipful 
“neutral” text when it adds like this from a close parallel in 
two consecutive verses | 
To swat, +uuwy BT min alig™+ a vg?™ cor vat* sah boh 

syr pesh [non cu sin] aeth Clem 1/2 

All others are against this addition (= Matt. vi. 25). 

But W-H have it although in square brackets and Souter’s 
edition follows without brackets. Soden rejects it. 

A glance at B in the neighbourhood will show the ms 
against T in the same verse (only support ¢ e) and in verse 20 
BLQT 33 Paris” W-H had asked us to accept astovow for 
amatrovow against all others and a huge array of Fathers 
very definitely, so that they convince the Revisers and Souter 
and they restore avracrouvew to the text without comment. 


xxii. 9 jin. +o0 gaye to tacya (post erotwacwpev) So B alone, 


61. 


and boh™®, a deliberate theft from Matt. xxvi.17. The others 
were more modest, for a few add something. /f adds tibi 
pascha, vg® +pascha, DPW ¢ de gat sah aeth +oo, but 
Origen again (“‘e Luca?” says Tisch. ‘ Certe quae seqauntur 
non a M¢ pendent’’) mou GeXets eropacopev cor To Tacxa. 
pnpatos (pro Xeyov) NBLTX 4 124 [contra fam] 213 Paris” 
892 Sodu™ ™° W-H R-V [non Sod]. Cf Matt. xxvi. 75, 
Mark xiv. 72. ; 

Cf also Luc. xviii. 30 Aan for aworkafy Only BDM min 
pauc [not 892 Paria’"] W-H™ [non R-V nec Sod] against 8 and 
all the uncials. Aan is the word in Mark x. 30. 


Neutral and Western tied together. 


Again and again D goes with B in Luke. Is this the “‘ neutral” or 


what is it? 


Luke 


_ vil 4. 


—os init. BD Epiph only against all the rest. In W-H it 
is in the text in square brackets. But either Epiph is quite 
wrong or he and BD are right. There can be no two ways 
about it. Then why put it in in square brackets? TI have 
said that Hort did not know his children when he saw them. 
Here is a case in point. You can’t call it “‘ western” and 
“neutral” and you can’t call it either “western” or 
“neutral.” Then what is it? : 

N* clearly read ws, for N° corrects to tws. Sah introduces 


Luke 


B IN ST, LUKE'S GOSPEL. 969 


nag Nee by xe = syr pesh ort {omitting @s). Boh has 
muuc. Whasas. It seems clear that there was something 
in the margin “ad emendandum ” which misled B. 


In this connection note: | 
ix, 3. -ava NBC*FLE 25+ Paris” Kvst 48 syr copt W-H Sod. The 


XV. 


XVil. 


xviii. 


xix, 


xxiii. 


Xxiv. ¢ 


30. 


17. 


35. 


48. 


omission (also supported by dat which does not express it) looks 
like an “improvement,” for when we turn to the independent 
witness D® we find that he has it with unc” and even d* 
opposite has ana (against other Latins). W has it and Sod, 
Tov ottevToy pocxyov (pro Tov pooxov Toy atzevtov) is not 
elegant, yet it is read by NBLQR Paris” Sod‘ W-H and 
Sod txt and d e but only these [not W]. The other lat oppose 
and with copé read very plainly vitulum saginatum, ‘ the calf 
which is nourished ” (Horner). 


. [ovrws exrat ovi0s Tou avOpwrov] ~evtynpepaavtov BD 220 


abdeisah, bok" [non W] (ovtws extat 7 nuépa tou viev Tou 
avOpwrou syr cu sin), W-H** omits. Soden does not. 


. €« veotntos (—pov) BD dl (syr cu sin) Dial et Tert™™. 


This may well be basic. [non W.] W-H omits. Soden 
has it. 
evye BD 56 58 61 (all three absolutely influenced by latin 
throughout) 892 [non al. minn] Orig and lat euge W-H™, 
and Soden who had just refused — pov above ! 
After the grave omission in xxiii. 34 we find BD alone 
have vos for ovros here in ver. 35 (add T' fam 13 126 131 
Paris™ LauraA! ¢* Sod'** sah boh arn Eus lr with the 
addition of vos later in the verse). ‘ 

Westcott and Hort do not follow B here. Then why omit 
with B ver 34? Is B not basic in verse 35? 


. ouTws xabws at yuvatces (—xae tert) BD [non al. vid.] laté 


syr arm aeth sah 1/2 boh* W-H [nil in mg.} 


. uxt n Kapdia nuwv Katouevn nv (—ev nutv) BD d ce vg'* syr 


cw sin fron al. syr] Orig et Orig™ W-H“* [non copé]. This 

almost looks like a ‘“‘nicety’’ of Origen however, shared by the 

others. 

paptupes (—eorte) BD Sod’? °° d@ dug W-H only (bok aeth 

possibly). B also omits the de preceding (not so D d). 

It is possible that the omission is an error from yMeiCcecTe 

in B, but D writes kalyMeicae as if ecte had been lost in 

eicae. C Paris” ff, r vg?® invert the order: paprupes ete. 
We might go as far ay to suggest that B* in: 


i. 21 fin may have had mpc, that is ev ty Kotdua pntpos, as D d alone, 


for there is a space there in B. (Tisch does not refer to it.) 
I mention this as there are other points as to B neglected 
in Tisch. Thus at:— 








270 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Luk , 
* ij. 40 he mentions D alone as having nu€avero for nukavev. This 


is almost certainly the reading of B* (see photographic edition) 
though not reported for B. 
Note conjunction of BDW at: 
iv. 40. eBeparrevev (pro pie ata BDW 21 are latt syr and Orig 
: (prob) 
43. See pe (pro pe Se) BDW 1380 892 [non Paris’] latt 
; Tert (against S and all the Greeks). 
Even 
y. 2. For awerdvvav, where NC*LQX 372 Paris” have emdvvav, 
BDW 892 are not to be separated, having erAuvov. 
(N.B.—This is immediately followed i in verse 3 by —tov ome oTyLwvos, 
NBDLW 157 Paris™.) 


“ Neutral” “ pre-Syrian”' “ pre-Alezandrian” misnomers for B. 


x. 21. +7w ayww post rvevpats although supported by NBCDKLXNE 
min® Sod™™ et Paris” abcde fil copt syr arm aeth looks 
suspiciously like an ‘‘addition’’ when Clem Bas oppose 
with Zp q goth AEGHMSUVW'TAA min permult [+892]. 
Here is a case where the despised “ Antioch” and Clem prove 
to have the shorter text and 892+ deliberately contradicts NB. 
The place is important. 

“In that hour (Jesus) rejoiced in (the) spirit (ev rw zeae and said ” 

. It is here that B and company wish to add tw ayww which seems 

unnecessary and rather fulsome. : 

- There is no help from Matthew (Gi. 25) where the prayer is introduced 

thus: ev exewwa Tw Kalpw aroxpies 6 6 Incous ever. 

’ Clement of Alexandria is very definite here: ayad\acapevos (showing 
as Barnard points out that the quotation is from Luke and not from 
Matthew) your ev to mvevyatt Inoous efopodoyoupat cou Tatep, dmowv, o 
Geos Tov aupavov Kat THS YS OTL aTexpypas TavTAa amo copwy Kat cuveTov 
Kat aTexadupas avTa wymiois © val oO TaTnp OTL OUTWS evdoxta eyeveto 
eutrpoobev gov. | 

If we may not follow Clem here, when may we follow him ? 

Barnard’s note says “ Clement omits rw ay after mvevpats with the 

Syrian Text (including A f g).” This old bosh about a “Syrian” text! - 
It is probably the basic text which even in Alexandria after Clement's time 
suffered this gloss. 


} This must be considered in such places. Observe how constantly 892 upholds 
B elsewhere; even to +«a: in vii. 47 quite alone with Paris” of all authorities with B. 
B 892 then clearly have one bage, and 892 here in x. 21 is the true exponent of it, not B. 








Luke 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 


271 


xxiii. 46. In the passage cas dovncas pwr weyady o lycous evrev * matep 


els YEeypas cou TwapaTiWepar ro mvevpa pou... .ekemvevcer 
is a good deal of conflict as to whether we should read 


there 
TOVTO 


be eray NBC*D*W (for cas tavta exrwv of many) or «ar 


TovtTo evray OY TovTo etrwy Or simply cat with Adamant 
cu sin. If we want the shorter text (in view of this 


a syr 
great 


divergence looking like an addition) we shall choose this ‘‘ «a: 
efervevcer,” or if we want the shortest, we shall eliminate 
the whole fina) clause “ touro...efervevoey”’ with X and four 
cursives adding Sod’? (= 213). At any rate NBD do not 
supply us with the shortest and by inference the most “neutral” 


or colourless text. 


xxiv, 17 fin. wat eare oxv0pwxo: By most, that is eighteen uncials and 
A’YW (eorat ox.) latt (except de) syrr against cac eotadnoar 
oxvOpamoa of NA* (LL extyoav) Paris’ e sah boh (Orig?) 


aeth alig. Tischendorf’s note is very full kere. 


But D d Cyr'™ have only cxv8pwroe the “shorter” text, 
eliminating both ecre and ectafycav. If we want the 
“shorter” text, we have to assume both eote and eatncay 


(L) expanded perhaps to evra@yoav, to be additions. 
(Syr hier’ omits cat ectadyocav and cxv@pwrao). 


W-H admit naz ecra@noay oxvOpwmoe into their text without 
marginal comment. Yet in their ‘ Notes on Select Readings’ 
towards the. end of Luke they have a lot to say about the 
Western ‘“‘non-interpolations.” Here is one they might well 
have followed. Sod quotes Orig for omission [see Tisch] but 


Sod™ does not omit. 

21. -onyepoy NBL 1 [non 118-131-209] Paris” Loh 
ag?® (hiat 2] W-Hand Sod txt against the rest and W. 
is an interesting place. The usual text runs: 


(sy7) 
This 


aha Ye guy Tag ToOVTAS TPITBY TAaUTHY nuEpay oN MEpOV 
ayer ab ov tavta eyevero. It is here that NBL drop onpepov 


as being pleonastic following tpityy tTauTny npepay. 


What 


do the great majority do? They retain both. But observe 
that D min®t d and all Latins Aug bis drop raurny and 


retain onepov. Who is right? When this kind of 


thing 


occurs, and when the 1 family (as above) is engaged in 
internecine warfare, I prefer to follow the ‘‘ Western” omission 
of ravrny rather than the “Egyptian” [not “neutral ”’] 
omission of onuepov. For the Latins are quite agreed here. 
Again I say that Hort [silent in his ‘ Select Readings ’] would 
have done well to consider this. The syriac shows that the 


t Of these I identify 22? (* Colb" Wetst) 42 71 Evst 150. Add Sod1s54 8 70. 


272 


Luke 





CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


basic text is involved, for they agree among themselves. It 
is true that onepoy does not appear, but they have their own 
way of doing things in such an expression, and it is note- 
worthy that they agree among themselves as do the Latins. 


General Improvement. 


. +70 (ante vouw) NBDLW 2°° 892 W-H Sod" et tet. Observe 


D does it too against the influence of d. It would be insig- 
nificant for B except that all through ch. i. and ch. ii. to this 
point he has been throwing away articles with the Latin ; see 
even li, 22 just above —tov ante xaBapiopov. 

(— ev vouw xupiov Paris” with Tf) 





. avtov es Tan at exrnoey (—avtov) emt TO mMrEpvyoy Tov LEpou. 


The omission of avrov sec. by NBLE 604 892? Paris” e 
Orig™ is oppused by the coptics as well as by the other Greek 
uncials, by the Latins and Syriacs, and every other Greek 
minuscule known. t : 
—reyou NBLV*WE Paris 604 Sod” [non al. min] sah boh 
syr sin Orig W-H Sod txt against everything else. There is 
no reason for others to add here. The narrative is graphic 
and it hag been removed to lend greater force to the dramatic 
character of the immediate cry of the demoniac. 

Consult doh And he cried out with a great shout...”’ where 
MApwores replaces Texan of sah. 

In sah and boh the exclamatory question of the demoniac 
is, as usual, introduced by xe thus practically replacing Aeywv. 


. txOvev wy cuvedaBov (pro wxduov 4 avveraBov) BDX 213d 


W-H™ against rell (4x0. nv cuver. Sod Paris”). 


. avrov (post Oewat) BLE 157 Sod" [W-H] (syr copt 


aeth) against the rest and &, not the “ shorter ” text. 


. +a (ante tpatiov) NBDLWXE 1 13 22 33 (157*?) 213 


604 892 Sod'” iz" syr copt W-H Sod txt. 


. ~ovrtes fin. Here is the “shorter” text with NBDLXW 1 22 


33 69 157 213 604 892 Paris” al’ copt (syr) W-Ht but from Matt 


_ xii, 8 and Mark ii. 25. Why should any add ovtes if not here 


originally, seeing it is absent from the synoptics? “Kas a 
yer avtov” is quite sufficient. There is no need for ovzes 
unless it belongs properly to the original writing of St. Luke. - 
In St. Matthew none add, and in St. Mark only D(A) and dat. 








{ Von Soden's additional testimony is insignificant (Sodt200 443), Yet this “ pair ” 
offends him, and he casts out the second avrov from his text, as did the Alexandrians 
and Hort and Tischendorf before him. . 

+ Not Soden, who followed the same group just above. Sod also omits ovres. 


Luke 


vi. 


9. 


11. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 278 


€l pro Tk NBDLW 157 Paris” it pl (copé). 
W-H simply accept this as the true text. But is it? re is 
rather the harder reading. It is necessary to write it out: 
Here are the alternatives involving an alternative punctuation : 

ewepaTynaw (vel evepwtw) upas es eEeotw Tw caPRatw ayabo- 
TOLNOAL HY KaAKOTOLNC AL; 

erepwtyow (vel emepwrw) vuas Te eLeoTw Te caBBatw ; ayafo- 
TOLNTAL N KaxoToingat ; 

Note that in Mark (iii. 4) it runs waz Neyer avrow * e€eotey (si 
licet latt alig) row caBBaow «.7.r. without e or tt, but the 
few Greeks who add, add rz and not et. 

In Matt. xii. 10 it is ee efeorey without fluctuation. Much 
more natural then is e a correction in Luke than the “ true” 
text. And te is to be preferred as being harder. Soden 
accepts this. Sod™ reads 7: against NBDLW. 


. tvuv (post ewremrAnopevor) Observe another addition. This 


by a rather large group NBLQRT*XWA*AZ Sod min pane 
et Sodmn’ f goth arm aeth copt W-H Sod txt. 

The rest and Latins with syr pesh diatess, Iren' very 
distinctly, and Bas omrv, and probably Tert. Syr sin omits 
25* ovas up o« eurreTrANopeEvas (vuv) OTL TewaceTe. 

The vuv appears superfluous, yet if present it does not 
follow that it would be omitted. And if superfiuous why 
should NBL etc. add it, except by way of improvement ? 


. Next comes the “shorter text,” an omission by B alone of 


ot TwaTepes avrwy at the end of the versé (briefly noticed in 
‘Gen. of Versions,’ p. 400). Do W-H follow? No. But syr sin 
sah and 604 since discovered, also omit. Does this strengthen 
the case? Not very much, but it shows that something 
bothered B, and in fact at this place there are signs of on 
erasure. [Only Sod*” (= our 273) appears to omit ot warepes.] 


. Mposevyedbe wept Twv evepeatovtwy vgas NBLUWE Paris* 


604 only 1V-H Sod (no new Mss.), against all and copt and 
Clem Orig Eus. 


. If the above at vi. 26 be wrong (and W-H by not following 


allow this), then why may not the omission of zpos avrov here 
by only N*B 892 Paris” sah [not bok] followed by W-H and 
Soden’s text be equally wrong? How could all others including 
L etc. have found it in their copies? The corrector of &, 
observe, put it back. 

The foolishness of it all is seen at: 
—tcavoe NBDFLE 180" ™ 157 a ¢ f # gin l vg cop syr 





} See above under “ Exchange of Prepositions.” 








274 


Luke 


47. 


CODEX B AND iTS ALLIES. 


arm. Yet Tischendorf and Soden retain ixavoe against this 
strong-looking group. W-H, more consistent, omit. W and 
Paris” with Sod'* 3 also omit. Sod ™ retains. 

+xat (ante odvyov sec.) B 892 Paris” alone with Evstimélinesu, 
but deliberate. Syr cu a in +m alone seems possibly 
responsible for this. 


. KateTtecey (pro emecery) BULRE 604 soli and W-H without 


marginal alternative! Soden does not add @ single new 
witness, yet adopts it in his text. : 
+-woet (ante ava) Although supported by an apparently 
formidable array NBCDLRS 33 157 213 892 Paris? Sod 12 
ae sah Orig, and admitted into W-H’s and Soden’s text, is 
excluded by Tischendorf who refers to Mark vi. 40 (“at vdtr 
propter Marci xata exatov nat xata TevtTnxovta invectum”’). 
Here, then, is an acknowledgment of an Origenian “ subtlety ” 
(see Canon Cook’s remarks supra in Introduction). It is 
clearly far more likely for an addition of wce: to be editorial than 
a subtraction of it. There would be no reason for subtraction. 
emAaBopevos matdsiov BCD 2°° Paris’? min™® e¢ Sadainare 
W-H Sod (pro emda. radu v rell gr et W) 
It may be thought that the partitive genitive wazéd:ov is the 
improvement here. But comparing Mark’s account xa: Aafwv 
macdiov, it would seem that BC followed D and laté for 


- emisaB. rwaiéiov in Luke [In Matt. it is wpooxareoapevos 


mavdiov}| and eschewed the genitive on purpose. 

Evan. 28 sides with BCD, but W is opposed and goes with 
N and the great majority for the genitive. I mention the 
place as most N.T. grammarians seem to be silent here. 
emtapBave can take either accusative or genitive, but if we 
read watd:ov then ryv yeipa is doubtless understood. It has a 
bearing on that very difficult place at Mark xiv. 72, where 
emtBadov exdatey has to be interpreted and where the Coptic 
adds tyv yetpa. There indeed A uses emAaSwv for er:Badruv. 
If waidiov in Luke be original it would seem that we have 
some authority for eliding ryv yerpa avrov in Mark xiv. 72. 


” xi. 10 Jin. avovyerat (pro avorxyPnoerat) BD*® syr to accord with 


14. 


AapBaver, (Matt vii. 7-8 avovynocrae, but in Matt. vii. 8 B 
(D wanting) does it also to accord with evpicxe:, but not 
ver. 7 leaving avovyncerar following So@ycetar. See note ad 
loc. in Matthew.) Soden has no new witness to add to BD in 
Luke or to B in Matthew. 
(See Luke xi. 12 under “ Solecisms.”) 

—Kxat avto ny = “NA*BL al’ cop arm aeth.” So Tisch. Add 
892 Sod*”* [not Paris®’’}] W-H Sod txt. Boh omits, but sah has 
it in a way (exeecyaxe rendered by Horner “ which is not 








B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 275 


Luke 
wont to speak ” although in his notes he classes this as if it were 


plain cw¢ov and not «at avro nv xwgov). The omission seems 
clearly an improvement. If cau qv exBadrwv Satporroy xwpov 
had stood originally, why on earth should any one add «az 
avto nv? Syr cu sin modify otherwise. They say ‘And 
it came to pass when he was casting out a devil from a 
deaf-mute.” Dde / are also prolix and uncertain witnesses 
here (see their testimony) so that there was simply some 
note in a common original which was perplexing. As 
some latin, with the syriac, as well as coptic are involved, it 
distinctly strengthens my contention for a second century 

; polyglot which is at the root of the trouble. 

xi. 83. dos (pro deyyos) NBCDT'X Sod al. ef 892 W-H [non Sod]. 
Doubtless from viii. 16 where all agree on @ws. Why should 
AL unc make a change from gas to ¢eyyos? The parallels in 
Matt. v. and Mark iv. supply nothing to this effect. We have 
to go to Matt. xxiv. 29 and Mark xiii. 24, in quite a different 
connection, to find deyyos. Hence geyyos is much more likely 
here than ¢ws which must be an ‘ improvement.” 

xii. 20, aetoveiv amo cov (pro amattovew aro cov) BLOT" 33d 
(contra D® et rell latt). Apparently to remove redundancy. 
avatovcw is read by Clem twicet Origen everywhere and 
Orig™, Basil Antiochh™*¢ 3 and the Latins repetunt, 
reposcunt (also Tert: reposcent, Tren’: expostulabunt) ¢ (and 
Cypr") expostulatur, as well as e Orig auferetur. 

Would it be believed possible that in face of this evidence 
W-H use artovory in their text without marginal alternative ? 
This is criticism gone mad, and against all rules of majority. 
‘Y does not support nor does new W, nor 892, and the only 
help is from the new Paris” = asrovow thy puxny gov aro 
cov, but of course Paris” belongs largely to special family 
traditions. Soden prints [am ]Jarrovew. 

28. audiater (pro ayguevvuct) B* (Doric. Cf. D Act xix. 35 
vaoxopov pro vewxopov) t, anprevee DLIT™™ only. This is con- 
tradicted by all others including W and Paris® (also Matt. 
vi. 30 all) and Epiph™* and Clem in Luke. 

W-H follow B alone [Soden adds no new support} with 
apdiagee (n0 marginal alternative) and Soden’s text has 
apduefer, although he gives no fresh u38 for this. 

81. avrov (pro rov Seov) NBD** (against d opposite and D** 








t Once ryv Wuyny vov amairovety azo gov, once libere anartover cov (—aro) thy 
uxnv; again raury mm vucre rqv Wuxny cou mapaAapBavovoww, Observe Const Mac Bas 
Antioch Epiph Clem and Justin in verse 48. 

t Cf. the so-called “ Doric" gender of Xtzos which B makes feminine at Luke xv. 14. 


TQ 


276 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


supra avrov) Lif Paris” ac sah boh aeth Ath [om. tov Qeov 
892]. ; 

At first this support looks serious, but it is far outweighed by all the 
other Greeks, Latins, Syriacs, besides Clement and MarcionTett 4x? Epiph bis 
- (Clem uses in his long quotation 27/31 rou Geov, and Clem” rwv ovpavav 
[= Matt. vi. 33 perhaps with Justin)). 

The point is this. In verse 80 we read: vzwp de a warnp oder ore 
xpntere trovtov. (31) wAnv Uyrecre tov Bacrderav Tov Peov... 

Apparently some considered this a kind of anacolathon, following. 
6 watnp, and thought atrod read better in verse 31 than an abrupt 
transition to tov Geov. But the weight of evidence is conclusive, and if 
Marcion may not be accepted here as arbiter, who may ? 

Sedulously W-H incorporate avrov into their text without any 
marginal alternative, as if they could thus turn the tables on Marcion 
for all time. Soden also has avtov in his text, but adduces no additional 
evidence for it. In fact he leaves out sah boh aeth and Ath. 

Tertullian is very definite (Marc. iv. 28 310): “Quaerite enim 
inquit regnum dei et haec vobis adicientur”; (Marc. ii. 24 180): “ Et 
Evangelium vestrum quoque habet Quaerite primum regnum dei et 
haec adicientur vobis.” Further (Orat vi. 8) he shows no signs of 
avrov when he writes: “ Quaerite prius regnum [the Kingdom}: et tunc 
vobis etiam haec adicientur.” 

Now turn to Matthew for control. The last from Tert may be 
partly Matthew (vi. 33) or not. There ra» Saovdetav tov Geov is followed 
by «at Tov Sixatocuryy avtov. In the case of NB g, k m Hus Ps-Ath tov 
Oeov is here omitted, and B shows that some consideration was being 
exercised about the passage for he inverts the order (alone) writing tv 
Sixatocurny kat tv Bactdeay avtov (—tov Geov). [Origen is very free, 
and 236 440 copt supply avrov for tou Geov as the others indicated in 
Iuuke. Here again in Matthew the phrase in dispute, verse 33, has to 
follow verse 82 with its o maryp vue. ] 

k is very definite in Matt. (wanting of course in Luke) for he writes 
“quaerite primo regnum et justitiam dé.” 

Luke 

xii. 56 fin. ove ot8a7e Soxipatey (pro ov Soxiafere) This is an en- 

largement of the narrative. Instead of : 
vToKxpiTat TO MpocwTov THS ynS Kat TOU Ovpavou (vel Tov oUp. 
Kat tS ‘yns) odaTe Soxipatew - tov Se xaipov tovTov mas ov 
Soxtpalere NBLT Sod 33 213 892 Sod [non Paris*’] 
wish to exchange the last two words for ove oidate Sonate. 
That is to say they make a harmonious although tautological 
antithesis to the first clause. This change is countenanced by 
sah boh aeth and supported by (f') J. This forms a very pretty 
group therefore, for /f /,as I have shown elsewhere, certainly 
partake of Egyptian characteristics. The group therefore 





Luxe 


xiv. 


10. 


18. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 277 


NBLT 33 (to which do not add Paris” this time] sah boh acth 


ff tare involved in an amplification, which Hort religiously 


follows without marginal comment. I claim that this is 
revision, and that the rest of the documents have preserved the 
true text. Nor is this all, for the amplification suggests a 
knowledge on the part of this Egyptian group of the disputed 
parallel passage in Matt. xvi. 2°, 3, for there the expression 
is “To pev Tpoowmov Twy ovpavay yiwwoxete Staxpwew ta de 
onpeta Twv Katpwv ov Svvacbe” (al. + 8oxpafey, al. +yvwvar, 
L ov Soxiuatere, S al. ov cuviere, al. aeth ov ywvooxere), while 
NBVXT 13* 124* 157 al. syr cu sin sah boh 14/22 arm Orig 
omit the whole thing. Notice that aeth has it in Matthew, 
and eight codices of boh and L®, Now the amplification at the 
end of Luke xii. 56 by NBLT 33 finds an echo in Matt xvi. 3. 
Hence, while excluding from Matthew on critical grounds, 
NBLT 33 no doubt knew the form attributed to Matthew. 
In fact, as far as ff (2) are concerned with non POTESTIS probare 
in Luke, they clearly reproduce the ov duvazGe Sox. or yovat 
of St. Matthew. 


. Ss peap meceras NABLWIT min pauc Paris” et 892 (lat 


cadet or ceciderit) W-H Sod for ets ¢peap ewmrecertae of the mass. 
This seems to be simply removing redundancy, for why should 
any add e- here, if not original? It seems most unlikely. 
D has exmecerrar and incidet. Sod and 213 have epweces. 
TOTE EGTAL TOL boa EVOTLOY TAVTWVY TWY TVVAVAKELLEVWY TOL. 
This addition of zavrwy by NABLNX_Sod™ min pauc Paris” 
and 892, although supported by aeth copt syr [here syr and 
latin divide squarely], is opposed by the mass of Greeks and 
the Latins (all except 7), and may be due to the original mis- 
reading of eENWMIONTWN read by mistake for savtwv. 
Certainly it is not the “shorter” text. Or it may be mere 
“improvement.” JV-H and Sod adopt ravtav, 

Note that syr sin opposes syr cu pesh diatess and OMITS 
with the Latins and the Greeks headed by D. 


5. waxaptos octets hayetat aptov ev tn Bac. tov Geov. Here 


NBLPRX jam 1 al. paue W-H Sod txt emphasise oats for 
os of D and the mass, who are supported by the Latin qui and 
by Clement Bas Epiph (Eus is on both sides). It would seem 
(as against Clement) that the minority are improving. 
Note that X* is against B. 

eFeXOuv we (for ceAGew cat dev) by NBDLY W-H Sod only, 
I believe to be an improvement. GR cop syr arm aeth read 
efeAGev wdeev. The other fifteen uncials all min goth and Basil 
with latt (omn except d) read eEeXOew xar dew. NBU are 
alone, and only strengthened by D. The last (as d agrees) has 








CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


some weight however. Sod and Paris” come to the assistance 
of this minority group with avedOwv dew, but W joins the 
mass with efeA@ew was Sew. This is the more noteworthy in 
such @ place, as DW are often conjoined. 


. 0 Te hapicatos Kat ot ypax. Te is added by NBL 892 [non 


Paris] only,. + D (against d and all others, and against 
Basil). This is again an addition. Why should it ever have 
been dropped if original? ‘W does not have it, nor even that 
faithful adherent Paris®. Soden follows Hort with +7e, but 
only adduces the same family mss as in other like cases, two at 
Jerusalem and one at Sinai. Below at xvii. 11 Soden opposes 
the same group. ‘ 


21 fin. +romoov pe ws eva Tov picOiwy cov Only NBDUX 33 


xvi. 29. 


xvii. 11. 


12. 


604 min™ add with only vg®®t gat, not Old Latin (except d) 
nor syriac nor coptic. This of course comes from verse 19 
where the prodigal son formulated beforehand what he would 
say. “When he comes to the father’s arms however and sees 
the look in his eyes, the second expression dies on his lips. 
Augustine points this out ‘nec addit quod in illa meditatione 
dixerat ‘fac me sicut unum de mercennariis tuis’’’... (See 
quotation at length in Tisch.) Even Hort, hardened slave to 
his combination NB, especially strengthened by D d, felt this, 
for he encloses the sentence in square brackets. Of course it 
should be banished from his text altogether. But the baleful 
influence extends to R.V. marg which says ‘“‘some ancient 
authorities add...” 

Paris” does not add, nor W, nor Sod”, nor 892, and the above 
min® are a mixed lot without special weight, and Teri? 
seems to ignore it. Soden omits although having re above 
with the smaller group. 

-avtoa NBL Paris” 892 d (contra D®) syr sin dohduo soli A*air 
arm Ephr (contra Aphraat) W-H [Sod]. 

All others have it. 

This is evidently intentional and regarded as an improve- 
ment. Again, two bok codd go with NBL against sak D™ and 
the rest. 
ev Tw TopevecOat (—avtov) NBL (Paris”) W-H only. Cf. d 
‘cum iter faceret”’ (against D® +avzov) the other latins dum 
tret and dum vadit, and the other versions. Soden opposes 
NBL here. 
umnvtncay (—avtw) Llonly ones to drop avtw with one boh™° 
annurncav (—avtw) B {Paris*' 892 have vrqurncay avta] 

Om. virnvtncay avtw syr cu sin; subleg. sou. 

Substitute orev noav Dde. Substitute et ecce a be filgqs. 

Whatever the true basic text (and W-H merely adopt B, and 


Luke 


xvii. 31. 


xix. 4. 


a 


27. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 279 


Soden follows L) the shortest text is in syr cu sin; Dd and the 
latins is the simplest, and if awnvrncay or varnvtncav find a 
place, avtw clearly belongs there as well, as witnessed to by all, 
including Paris”. W has aryvrycay avtrw, Soden confuses us 
as to D by quoting D with BL for —avtw, for, as he says 
above, D has omov noav for uryvrncav, and therefore avrw 
falls away of itself. He quotes 157 (his *") wrongly. 157 
has avtw. 

—tw (ante aypwo) ‘ And he who is in a field” NBL fam 13 
[non 124] 157 Paris” W-H Sod tzt only, but ¢f. bok. T would 
like to enquire of von Soden if § 371 (Sinai 260) does not also 
do this. It is important for us to know whether 6 371 follows 
B in such places, as it is with it alone elsewhere in Luke, 
and its geographical location at Sinai is important. 

+es To (ante eurpocdev) Only NBL (157 es ta) £* 892 [non 
T*, non Paris’’| (ef) (syr sin) W-H Sod txt not only against the 
rest, but against both coptics. Sah is very simply ean, bok 
ETAYOOX! ETOH ACE NAC. 

The syr is equally simple. 

Not even Paris’ adds es to here. Soden however adds 
the new witness, I think it is rather significant of 
attempted “improvement” that both here and in Luke xiii. 7 
Evan 157 should vary slightly, here adding «s ra instead 
of es To, and there adding ad ns instead of ad ov. 

157 also throws some light on the omission in the next 
verse :— 


. —eSer avtov cat by NBLT* Sod™ fam 1 Paris*” Laura4 !* Sod'*# 


copt arm W-H Sod txt. There is absolutely no reason to 
suppose that the great majority should have added this phrase. 
But to NBL it seems to have savoured of pleonasm. ava- 
Breas o inaous etdev avTov Kal evmev Tpos auTOV. 

The old exemplar from which 157 is derived seems to have 
had some note on this passage, for 157 changes thus: «az 
eyeveto ev Tw SiepyerGar Tov incovy evdev autor * avaBreyas 
Se 0 incous eve Tpos avtov. These things should all be taken 
into consideration in weighing evidence. 
kat xatacdatate +avrovs NBFULNR Sod™ 7 33 53 157 218 
892 Paris*™ Sod'*? Hvst 18 19 49 H*" y" 2" copt syr diatess 
aeth W-H Sod tat. Apparently an imposing array, but 
opposed by all the rest, by all Latins and by Eus (otherwise 
so sympathetic to NB). 

Chrys twice also adds avtovs but suppresses eumpoodev pov 
afterwards so that his testimony is ‘‘ free” and useless for 
comparison. 

Here is another square division between syrr and datt, and 


280 


Luke 


xix. 30. 


38. 


40. 


42, 


xx. 14. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


if there be a “neutral” text it is D with majority Greeks 
and latin which preserves it. 

+xat (ante Avoavtes) BDL 157 892 d aeth bok 6/20 [contra 
N rell, lat goth syrr sah boh 14/20 Orig Eulog]. Here is another 
addition to fill out the sense. Soden has no new witness. 

Of minuscules only 3 and 74** support 157 [not Paris’’] 
while D is contradicted by W and Sod. Observe that the 
Latins syr and copt say “loose him and bring him,” supplying 
the «az later, also to fill out Avcavtes avtov ayaryere. 

W-H follow BDL without marginal comment and so does 
Soden. Why should xa: have dropped out of all the others? 
Orig and Eulog are with the majority against BDL. There- 
fore W-H are entirely unscientific here. There is nothing 
scientific about it because at: 

W-H and Soden follow the conjunction NBL Paris” Orig 
against all else for the order ev ovpave expyvy (against epnvn 
ev ovpave). Both coptics are against the change: therefore if 
derived from a common original. with NBL they distinctly 
part company here, sah saying ‘‘ The ca in the Heaven,” 
and boh ‘‘a peace in (the) Heaven.” 

The arrangement here of NBL Orig = cv ovpavw etpyvy 
nar do€a ev vxprros is perhaps intended as the antithesis of 
Luke ii. 14 S0fa ev uyptorous Gew nae ems ys erpnvyn... The 
order of NBL Orig we may be sure would not have been 
changed by all others. Here again is one of Canon Cook’s 
“ niceties ” of Origen. Another “‘nicety ” occurs at :— 
xpatovow (pro xexpa€ovtat) by the same group NBL Sod?* 
and Orig* ed. (against* 188 cod 4. 182 3. 145) [non Paris”] 

Tisch says nec xpakovow nec xexpakovrat alibi in N.T. sed 
in LXX ut frequentissimum est xexpafovta:, ita nusquam 
xpakovet legitur. (Soden follows Hort, although his *™” 
(descendant of B) at Mount Sinai is the only new witness. 
His %* seemingly. abstains and does not even read xpafovras 
with D*. ) 
et eyvws (~Kal ov Kat ye) EV TN NHEPA (+cov) tavtn Kat av 
NBL aeth (Orig) (Cyr). So much authority exists for xa: ov 


-earlier (including Iren Orig'" 1/3), while Hus writes xat ye ou, 


and Orig himself ** «& eyyweas ov, and Hus in another place 
et eyvws xat cv, that NBL appear merely to be editing here 
once more followed by W-H Sod txt. Sod’ 892 have «a: cv 
(Kat ye). : 

mpos addAnrous (pro pos eavrous) - NBDLR min*"4 Paris® 892 
LauraA sah boh. As eavrous is used in Matt. and in Mark, 
it might be thought that the other Greeks had here substituted 
eavtous for adAndous. ButI think not. In the first place all 


Luke 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 281 


the Latins oppose [and these things must be taken into 
consideration, seeing the friendliness of the Latin elsewhere 
to B]; in the second place the expression in sah doh in 
Matthew is not the same as in Luke. (In Mark it is in sah.) 
But the probability in Luke is coptic reflex influence here on 
NBDLR. Further, if we want the “shorter” “ neutral” text, 
we must eliminate both pos eavraus and apos addyAous, for syr 
cw sin aeth omit altogether! W-H and Sod follow XNBDUR. 


. efearTey nas xaloapt (pro ekeotiy nuty kaicapt) NABL fam 


13 [non 124] 33 157 213 254 Sod 74°" against all others 
including W and Paris” (om. nuw N 892 boh”). This is avery 
important place for our contention of “improvement.” Observe 
first that 7 2a¢ opposes all the Latins “ Licet nobis.” Secondly, 
observe that it agrees more with sah and boh man (most boh 
omit) and therefore might be classed as ‘‘ Egyptian,” especially 
as A joins the small group for nuas (for I think A was written 
by acopt). But of course we must go deeper than this and 
enquire into the grammatical usage following efeor:. In the 
note to Winer (p. 402 note 4, English edition) Buttmann is 
quoted thus: “A. Buttmann remarks that mpézee (mpemov eat) 
has four constructions in the N.T. (1) with dative and 
infinitive Mt. iii.15.¢ (2) with dative followed by accusative 
and infinitive Heb. ii. 10. (8) with accusative and infinitive 
1 Cor. xi. 13. (4) it is also used personally Heb. vii. 26. “Efeors, 
which usually has the first of these constructions [t.e. dative} 
is occasionally followed by the accusative and infinitive, viz. 
Luke vi. 4, xx. 22, Mark ii. 26” [the first and second passages 
are correct, but ow by D in Luke vi. 4; the second is the one 
we are dealing with here]. ‘ With Se? we find the accusative 
and infinitive or the infinitive alone; yp} occurs once only 
(Jas. iii. 10) with accusative and infinitive.” See also 
Thackeray's ‘Blass’ p. 241. 


Confining ourselves to the question of efeavse we find: 


Matt. 


xi. 


. oux efeativ AaSew Tov aptov Twv Texvery 
. et ekeotey atroAvaat THY Yyuvaika avToU 

. eeotwv Souvar xnvoov Karoapt 4 ov 

. ou ekeatw Bare avta es tov KopBavay 


.. wotovely o ove eFeatiy Tove ev caBBaTo : 
without a par- 


ticular relation 


. «sous ove ekeotiv aye et un Tous tepets also Luke vi. 4 (ors D) 
. efeotiy xnvoov Karcapt Sovvas 7 ov 





{+ But see & alone there nus. 
t Assumed from the text of NABL. 


282 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIEs. 


viii. 87. es mearevers e& oAns THs Kapdias e€eotiv. Tantum) 


dative, but foreign to 
the particular case 
under discussion 


xii: 10. e efeotw rors caBBacw Oepatrevcat 
12. wote eeotw Tos caBBaow xadws Trovew 


ii, 24. Se rt wovovew tos caBBacw o ove efeotw 


as iii. 4. eLerrw tas caBBaow ayafov moimoat... 
<J 
vi. 2. 7s arotecte 0 ove ebeots Trove Tos cahRace 
9. a ekeotw tw caBBatw ayabotomcat n KaxoToincal 

tiv. 3. eLeotw Tw caBBatw Oeparevoa: ov 
Matt. 

xii. 4, 0 ove e€eotiy (C rell e€ov) nv aut dayev all MSs 

xiv. 4. ove efeoti cat exe avtny all Mss 

xx. 15. 7 ove ekeotw pot o Oedw Touoa ev rots epots all MSS 
Mark 


vi. 18. o7e ove e€eotw coe exew THY yuvatea Tov abeddou cov all and 
Orig, except D* oe and a 

x. 2. eeteori avdpt yyvatca arodvaat all Mss (the two accusatives 
following one another would be abhorrent) 


v.10. xae ove eFeotw cor apas tov kpaBarrov all Mss 
xviii. 81. yurv ove efeotw atoxtetvas ovdeva all Mss 


Evi. 21. & ove ekeotw nucv wapadeyerOat (only D nyas against d nobis) 
xxi. 37. e« eFertwy pou every Te Tpos ce all Mss 
xxii. 25. et avOpwrov Pwomaov nat axataxptroy e€eoTe vty pactivew 

all mss 


vi. 12. wavra por e€eotw all mss (and Clem libere usw or nur) 
x. 23. mavra pos efeotww adr ov Tavta cupheper* mavta wot ebertiv 
@AX ov Tava oxodozer. Some Mss omit zo: first or both, 


but none seem to have pe. 
2 Cor. 


xii. 4. A ove efov avOpwmw rAadrnoa all mss and Clem Ath Naas 
Basilid Orig pluries but Orig semel efov avOpwroy, 

Now the above is clear and unambiguous. Eliminating the fifteen 
cases mentioned first, which do not bear on the point, there follow thirteen 
or (counting 1 Cor. x. 23 twice) fourteen instances of the dative case and not 
the accusative. In Acts xvi. 21 only does D give an accusative, which B 
and the rest contradict. It is a very pretty exhibition, and we do not need 
the Grammarians’ assistance after all. It is established beyond per- 
adventure that the N.T. usage of all mss and all recensions is for the 
dative and infinitive with efeot, and when NABL invite us to read quas 
in Toke xx. 22 we refuse. When Hort tells us it is the ‘‘ true text” 
(without marginal alternative) we say that he has once more mistaken an 
idiosyncrasy of a mall group for the truth. The same applies to Soden, 


B IN ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 283 


who follows Hort with nuas. A very lovely key is offered usin 2 Cor. xii. 4 
as to the secret. Behold once more Origen at the bottom of it with his 
“niceties ’! Here is the verse: 

oTt npTrayn els Tov Tapadeicoy Kat NKovcEv appyta pnuata a ou« efov 
avOpamw dadnoat. 

In 'Tischendorf’s note (on verse 3) he says: ‘“‘efov (efor LP 17) 
avOpwre et Naasst!? U2 Basilid™? ™! Clem"? Orig! 19° 28? 633 agtsere Ath 
etC......- Orig! © efov avOpwmov. Item L 47 b** 14“ e€. avOparrwv. 
Cf. Naass"*: emwv ypracbae vio ayyedov xat yeyovevat ews Sevtepov Kat 
TpLTOU Ovpavou Els TOV Tmapadseroov QUTOV KAL EWPAKEVAL A EWPAKE Kat axnxoevas 
pouata appyta a oux e€ov avOpwTw enev. Item Basilid™! : nxovca appt. 
pn. a oux ebov avo pane ete.” 

Origen then, observe, alone makes use of the dative pluries ard 
once of the accusative. Hine illae lacrymae. It was Origen’s text or 
preference in Luke xx. 22 which influenced NABL (perhaps with coptic, 
see note on next verse), although it is not the true text. And here are 
Basilides (A.D. 117-188) and Naassent (also before 4.p. 200) contra- 
dicting Origen’s show of grammatical niceties, and proving that St. Paul 
used the dative in 2 Cor. xii. 4 as did St. Matthew and St. Mark and 
St. Luke and St. John. Need more be said? Soden follows Hort and 
NABL for nuas and perpetuates the error. 

Cf. Matt. xxii. 17 efeotw Souvvar xnvoov xaicapt 7 ov with Adalbert 
Merx’s remarks (vol 1, p. 800 seq) as to the versions, and compare pers. 
Luk 

xx. 23, —711 pe merpatere NBIJ fam 1 116 157 892 Paris” these only 
and ¢ sah boh against all the rest and aeth, all the syriacs, 
and all the Latins (except e) and Basil. [Tisch quotes arm 
on both sides. ] 

The clause is present in the parallels Matt. xxii. 18 (all), Mark xii. 15 
(all), and we are invited to follow NBL copt in Luke for omission because 
it must have been incorporated into the Lucan text from Matt. or Mark. 
Hort is certain of it, for he has nothing in his margin. Souter is satisfied 
about it because his. text omits and he has not inserted any footnote. 
Soden follows suit, but adds only 630(= 3) as a new witness. In other 
words, NBL and coptic are to outweigh everything else and carry down with 
them the testimony of syr cu sin (both extant and both for the clause in 
question). Now the argument for this omission is clearly very good, and 
nothing we could say would move these “self-constituted arbiters of the 
true text’ if we could not show the fallibility elsewhere of their favourite 
witnesses. But we have shown this in these pages again and again, and, 
with D seventeen uncialsand Basil, witha bedfffighlarr. dim pvgg 
codd omn (against e) with aeth (against sah boh) and with syr cu sin sch 
pesh we claim these words as Lucan, and say that they should be restored 
in the next revision. NBL have just been shown in the previous verse 
and verses to be so “untrue to type” in many places that we lose all 


284 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


confidence in them when only supported by the coptic, and we cannot 

admit them as final arbiters here. It would be absurd. If they are not 

the purveyors of a ‘‘ neutral” and “ pre-syrian ” text elsewhere, why here 
against such heavy battalions of evidence ? 

[Norz.—In sah and boh the clause “ why tempt ye me” in Matt. and 
Mark is introduced by xe. The beginning of Luke xx. 24 “ Show me 
a denarius” is also introduced by xe. The coptic may have skipped 
the question owing to the double occurrence of xe. I claim elsewhere 
coptic action on NBL. It may be so here. ] ; 

Soden's eclectic position throughout the above passages is note- 
worthy. 

Luke xx. 25. Once more coptic (bok) comes in alone with NBL fam 138 
(non 124] 892 Paris*’ Sod"? (arm) W-H Sod for the order 
towvy arodsote, instead of amedote towuy of all the rest 
supported by Basil'® * " } with amodore ovv as T min’. 

Sah (some Mss) are against it, and two Mss omit Torvyy with 
D Sod" ade fil g usyr cu sin and aeth diatess. 

Hence here once more we have bohatric influence on XBL, 
because sah 2/7 omit outright with D and a strong Latin 
combination backed by syr cu sin, and for basic probability (in 
view of the change of order, which always points to something 
of the kind, especially when bok opposes, ag here, sah 5/7) 
I would be inclined to accept the omission of rowuv. ; 

[rowuy is nowhere else used in Luke and does not occur 
in the other Gospels. It occurs only thrice elsewhere, 
1 Cor. ix. 26, Heb. xiii. 18, Jas. ii. 24. In the last-named 
place NABCP al. lat syr cop arm aeth omit. | 

26. The next is hardly ‘‘improvement,” but probably an error. I 
let it follow here as it shows NBL still conjoined (with only 433 
892 W-H Sod). They read: xat ove tryvoav emiraBecOa tov 
pnuatos instead of wat ovn wy. eTrAaBeoPat autou pnuatos. Of 
course AY may have fallen out in €MIAABECOAIAYTOYPHMATOC. 
Paris” shows signs of correcting this by writing tov pnyaros 
avtov with Sod™. The Latins are plain for ejus, as also syr 
vet. Coptic expresses avrov and then “with a word” (sah), 
“in a word” (boh), syr pesh “ ex eo verbum.” 

27. Neyovres (pro avtikeyovtes) NBCDLN min alig Paris*’ et 892 
Laura * Sod 78 WH [non 604] de goth copt syr (of. V infra). 

This is both to remove a double negative and conform fo Matt. 
(Aeyoures), and Mark (oerwes Aeyouor) as actually Y Sod* in Luke. 





t In Ferrar’s edition there is an error in the text. : 
} In the previous verse xx.24 Basil" and Basil took each one side of the question 
about the omission of aroxpidevres, which reading I do not discuss. 


B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 285 


The clause is ot ave AeyovTes avactacw py evvas Which APTAATI unc® 
al, plur a arm let stand. ais perhaps the most important witness of all for 
the “received” text, giving “qui contradicunt resurrectionem non esse” 
(most Latins have ‘“ qui negant esse resurr.; d e qui dicunt res. non esse). 
The extraordinary thing is how to account for avte Aey. having crept in to 
fourteen or fifteen uncials (W has this reading also, so it is just as “ old” 
as the other) and into the graeco-latin a, which the reviser of that ms 
(and it has distinctly had a censor on it) allowed to stand. I fear the 
onus is on the minority to prove that Xeyovres is not an endeavour at 
correction. 

See Winer (English edition, p. 755) citing “1 Jo. ii. 22 
0 apvovpevos ott Inoovs oun ect o ypicros”’ [where our authorities 
make no change as here] “‘ Luke xx. 27 avtsdeyovtes avactacw my ewvat 
(Xen. Cyr 2 2 20, An 2 5 29, Isocr. Trapez 360, Demosth. Phorm 585, 
Thuc 1 77)’ [from which it appears that there is plenty of authority for 
this] ‘‘ Hebr. xii. 19 o¢ axovoartes mapytycavto un mpooteOnvat auras 
Aoyou (Thuc. 5 63), Gal. v. 7 Tis upas evexoer te adnOeca py meBecBai 
(Eurip. Hee 860).”" “ Compare further Luke iv. 42, Acts xx. 27, 1 Pet. iii. 10 
(Thuc. 5 25 7 53, Plato Phaed 117 c, Demosth. Phaenipp 654 b) and see 
Vig., p. 459, 811, Matt. 534, Rem. 5' (Jelf 749, Don, p. 591). We have 
similar examples in German, in colloquial language, and in Greek also 
the usage may be explained as arising out of the circumstantiality which 
belongs to the language of conversation. The negation which the verbs 
contain became less sensible, and hence it was expressly revived in the 
dependent sentence (compare Madvig 211). Modern grammarians, indeed, 
are disposed to allow that this construction is an éxample of pleonasm 
(note, quoting Hermann “non otiosam esse negationem..."’); logically 
however one of the negations is undeniably superfiuous.” So Winer. 
Blass is not quite so full, but (p. 255, English edition) he says: “ We may 
particularly note the use of 4» according to classical precedent (Kihner 
761 f.) in certain instances after verbs containing a negative idea (a 
pleonastic use according to our way of thinking). Luke xx. 27 
oe avtideyovtes (AP al.; NBCDL read Aeyorres as in Matt. and Mark) 
avactacw 74 ewat (avtireyeww here only takes an inf.), xx. 34 ews tpes 
atapynoy py edevas pe (ue am. 5. NBLT ; asapp. not elsewhere with an 
inf.). Cp. 1 Jo. ii. 22 0 apvovpevos ote Inoous ove eatw o Xpictos (as 
Demosth. 9 54 apy. ws ove eset totovrot) Hebr. xii. 19 wapynrncavto pe 
(om. &*P) mpootePnvas, Gal. v. 7 Tis vpas evexowev adnOeca wy retecOar ; 
(eyxorrtecOar takes rou dev in R. xv. 22, cp. Kiihner 768c). Butin Hebr. 
xi. 24 we have gpyqcaro (“scorned”) AeyerOar; and «wAvew is regularly 
_ used without a subsequent uj, a construction which is also admissible in 
classical Greek, Kithner 767 f.; see however §71, 2 and 3.” 

We cannot complain that the grammarians are not full enough this 
time! Blass proceeds (p. 256, §6): ‘‘The classical combination of 
negatives ov (u7)...ovdeis (undeis) and the like, to intensify the negation, 


286 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


is not excessively frequent; the instances are Mark xv. 4 ove amoxpin 
ovdev, 5 ovxets ovdev amexpJn, Luke x. 19 ovdev...ov wn (not in D), xxiii. 
53 ove nv. ovderw ovders, Acts vill. 89 ove. ..ouxet:, Mark xi. 14 pnwete... 
pndeis etc. (ovdemoTe por ovdets Herm. Mand iii. 3); on the other hand we 
find (contrary to the classical rule, Kiihner 758, but cp. 760, 4) ovy apmace 
769 JO, X. 28, ov... umo Tuvas 1 Cor. vi. 12, ovde tov ratepa Tis emeywe- 
axe, Matt, xi, 27, xii. 19, ovve .. . Teg Acts xxviii,.21, ov duvnon ett oixove- 
pew Luke xvi. 2, ob... wore 2 Pet. i. 21.” 

I have cited Winer and Blass thus fully that there may be no mis- 
understanding on the subject. A revision by the fifteen uncials involved 
in writing avtiAeyortes, with the Latin ms a, presupposes an endeavour to 
carry out a classical improvement, while the Aeyorvtes of NBCDIL d e copt 
syr and goth would be an endeavour to remove a classical improvement or 
rather that they have the unclassical but ‘‘ pure milk of the word.” 

Far more likely would it be (from what we have already seen of their 
methods) for NB to endeavour to improve here. And the decadence of 
the language is showing itself already, or to put it in another way, 
the Egyptian school in Alexandria already by 200 or 300 a.p. considered 
the usual classical redundancy as a pleonasm to be removed, especially 
when a parallel could be consulted where it was not found.t 

Jn other words, since avtiAXeyortes is absent from Matt. and Mark, 
and it is universally acknowledged that St. Luke had the higher education, 
is it likely, I ask, that ‘‘ Antioch ” introduced avteAeyortes, or not rather 
that it is original, and that NBCDL d e are the ones guilty of removing 
avte? I plead for its restoration. 

To my surprise Soden prints avt:Neyoutes against NBCDLN Sod™. 
Upon what principles is his text then constructed? For just above he 
has willingly followed the weaker combination NBL (xx. 22, 23, 25, 26). 

I have referred elsewhere to considerable sympathy between B™ and 
a latin. Here at any rate I believe that a preserves the older text. [In 
the very next verse B @ come together again. See under ‘“ Historic 
present.’’] 

Note in this connection Luke xxii. 34 where NBLQTX (a regular 
congery of sympathisers) refuse the strong Greek negative Hetpe ov wn 
povncet onpepov arectwp...and write merely ov dwrvyce. Thus also Sod, 
Luke 

xxi. 12. +ras (ante cuvaywyas) only NBD 157 d'* W-H sah and one 
boh ms. Cf. Mattx.17. In Mark xiii. 9 tas is absent. It is 
very unlikely that tas should have been dropped here by all 
the others. Even Paris’ does not have it. Soden adds no 
new witnesses and excludes from his text. 





t Since writing the above I have noticed in Luke x. 19 that N, with D Orig 1/2 alone 
removes ov py from the sentence xa: ovdev nuas ov py adcanoes (vel adixnon). This offers a 
further commentary on the gradual disuse of the pleonastic negative. 








Luke 


abid, 


xxi. 14. 


xxii. 14. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 287 


amayouevous (pro ayopevovs) NBLUD*Y Sod’ fam 1 157 
Paris’? e only seem to have preserved the “true” (and 
‘‘Jonger”’) text here, for W-H and Sod (without new evidence) 
print arayopevous, although the Latins and even bo sah show 
plainly they read ayoyevous in their Greek ! 

I may be considered to be wasting time and space taking up 
such a small point. But the whole thing hangs together. 

Even the preference at: 

Gere (pro Jerbe) by NAB*DLMRWAIIY 383 p*" Sod* W-H 
Sod txt, against Orig Cyr and the mass, is quite deliberate. 

(In xxi. 15 Orig and Cyr are opposed as to the order avteatyvat 

7 avtesTrew OF avTerTey ny avtiaTnvar, While D® Sod’ ac fil 
gr syr Cypr™ are content with avtiornva: (resistere) and d: 
contradicere ; ¢ coresistere aut contradicere). 
—dwédexa This is an important place. The omission is 
supported by N*BD 157 [but not by Paris’ nor W nor the 
rest] plusa be de ffil r syr cu sin sah 5/6 and of course 
adopted by W-H, without marginal alternative, nor a word in 
‘Select Readings.’ Soden also omits but adds no new witnesses. 
The above looks like a strong combination, but it is not, 
because “ there is a reason ”’ for it lurking beneath the surface. 
It is opposed by Marcion, eighteen uncials, and N° al. min 
ti a8 p dim gat vg syr™  boh arm aeth, while 8*LX 
Evst 6 Sod" sah 1/6 suppress avroctoXo in favour of Swdexa 
(as Mark xiv. 17). . 

The conjunction of so many Latins shows how early the 
change was made, but it occurred BETWEEN Marcion’s time 
and that of B. 

In St. Luke’s account of the last supper there is no mention 
made of Judas (except for the inference in verse 21)! We 
pass from verse 14, where it is simply recorded that the twelve 
apostles sat down with our Lord, to verse 15 “with desire 
have I desired to eat this passover with you,” to the celebra- 
tion itself 17/20. Verse 24 begins a new section about who 
should be the greatest, which seems a very rapid transition 
from verse 23. Verse 31 contains an apostrophe to Peter, 
followed by his confession of trust in himself. 35/37 are 
occupied with the closing scene of the supper, and suddenly at 
verse 38 they produce two swords, and verse 39 records the exit 
towards the Mount of Olives, after which Judas meets them. 

The censors of the text then must have overlooked the brief 
reference in Luke xxii. 21 “ wAqv Sou 9 xe~p Tov wapadidovtos 
pe eT cou ee THs Tpategns,” and have missed the fuller 
accounts of St. Matthew xxvi. 21/25, Jo. xiii. 21/26 where 
Judas is mentioned, and Jo. xiii. 27/30 where Judas’ exit is 








288 


Luke 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


mentioned, and have supposed Judas’ absence in St. Luke’s 
account ? 

In Matthew pera tov dwdexa pabytwy is the text of N etc., 
while BD and some merely omit pa@ytwy. Only in Luke is _ 
Swdexa omitted by the Mss mentioned above. 


xxi. 18. +amo tov wy NBKUUM(W)II 892 Paris” Lauraé™ min 


aliq (awapts 225 ut Matt) e sah boh syr hier aeth (DG 1 al. 
syr cu sin arm) W-H Sod tat. 

But itis omitted by ACKTAA unc® Sod latt syr pesh. Tisch, 
remarks that “‘ ame tov yyy Lucae non proprium est, ¢f. 1. 48, 5. 
10, 12 52, 22 69, Act 18 6. Praeterea non legitur nisi 2 Cor. 5 16. 
Cf. et Matt. 26, 29 ubi est avapr:, et Marc 14, 25 ubi est ovxets.” 
At any rate, here we have the “longer” text once more 
witnessed to by NB etc. 


55. weps apavrwy Se wup (pro ayavtwy Se tup) Only NBLTT' 


Paris” Hus d (incendentibus) (r 8). This seems rather forced 
(Phalar. Ep. v.) and occurs nowhere else in N.T. It suggests 
even an acquaintance with the Latin cirewmsedentibus for 
cuveabicavter following of be def fil gq vg [consed. only 
a (r)] mepixaicavtwv only DG fam 1, while weps to light the 
fire ‘all round ” is suggested by up ev weaw rns avAns. 

In St. John (xviii. 18) it merely says: «ae ot uwnperas 
avOpaxtay memotnxotes, but being ev perw Tys avaAns it would 
imply the thought of mepiayavtes if they were to make a good 
fire. I suggest that wep: is an “improvement,” but Soden 
follows W-H without adducing new witnesses. 

In Mark xiv. 54 the fire is already made. 


55 jin. Similarly, same verse, peoos avtwy for ev peow avtav by 


BLTT' fam 1 892 W-H, Sod (withéut new witnesses), only 
savours Of a deliberate change. Why does N not have it? 
Nor Paris” ? And why does fam 1 have it? [non 181]. We 
have just seen that they ran to wept xabicavtwy above, 
exceptionally and with DG only. 

pecos is against boh (Hen Tovsensf) while sah is 
nrTewssen'te. D* substitutes wer avtwy Oepyaivopevos, as d 
caleficiens se (cf. Jo. xviii. 18, Mark xiv. 54). 


xxiii. 11. —avrov (post reptBarov) NBLTT' 52 291 b** 892 Sod'' et 


txt Paris®’ Hust 150 a and (vg) W-H. 
These would read : 

meptBarwv ecOnta AapMpay aveTeurey avTOV Tw TeiaTw 38 
if the first avrov were unnecessary and pleonastic. Once 
more @ comes to join B*™ here, but all the rest oppose. And 
there seems much more reason for a purist to remove the 
avtov than for all our other authorities to have inserted it! 
W has it with the rest. 





B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 289 


Luke 

xxili. 20. If we were dealing with a true “neutral” and “shorter” 
text, we should not oscillate as we do between omission and 
addition. Here is an addition. I have not put the places 
in juxtaposition purposely. They happen to fall in a regular 

sequence here as I pass through the chapter. 
ibid. +avtais (post rpocepwvncev) NBLTT'13-124-346 Laura4 ™ 
157 892 Sod" et Sod a sah boh syr W-H; mpos avtovs 69, 
autous D Paris® (d advocauit eos ; Paris®' efwvncev avtovs) it. 

What ?—I shall be told—do you question such a strong combination 
as this: NBLT coptic syriac latin in conjunction? Well, considering 
that APXTAATI anc® strengthened by WY Sod = nineteen uncials, all 
minuscules but four, and arm pers omit (pers: Sed de Jesu iterum 
Pilatus sermonem fecit, ~avtow), I think it is a pretty good place to 
pause and consider our critical principles. If the same evidence of 
NBLT ete. called for omission I should not perhaps hesitate, but as it is 
an addition to All out the sense, I may well hesitate, in view of the bad 
record of NBLT in combination as so often shown in these pages. 

Here is the sentence : 

“ aru ouv (vel Se) 0 weAaTos Tpotepuvyce GedAwy aTrodvaas Tov Iycour.”” 

The antithesis to mpocedwvnce (showing Paris’ up in a very poor 
attempt at improvement with epwryce avtous) is at once given in verse 21: 

“or de enepwvouv (well rendered by a: proclamabant against siub- 
clamabant of others) Xeyovtes gtaupov ctaupou (or otavpwooy otavpwaor) 
avrov.” 

Thus Pilate shouted aT them, not To them, and they shouted back at 
Pilate. For observe that there is no avtw or wpos avtov either before or 
after Xeyovres in any Greek, Latin or Syriac authority [in fact D d 
emphasise the proceeding, using expafay but leaving out AeyorTes 
altagether with syr sin}, and sah onty [not bok] adds epog after 
ACHIYKAK EROA, translated by Horner “cried out at him,” supplying 
at, and entirely bearing out what Iam saying. Thus the proceedings did 
not call for autos in verse 20 after mpocepwrnee at all, and I rather think 
that all the authorities cited who add have been over-zealous, and that 
our “junior” seventeen uncials + W -+ hundreds and hundreds of 
cursives are the real purveyors of the “‘shorter” and ‘“‘true” text. Let 
the critics answer this. I shall be glad of more light on the question. 

In conclusion, so as to cover the subject thoroughly, examine the 
three other passages in St. Luke where the word occurs : 


Luke 
vi. 13. «at ore eyeveto nuepa mpocepwrncey tous pabytas avtov “ And 


at daybreak he roused his disciples (by calling).”’ 
vii. 32 (= Matt. xi. 16). oyovor eroev rrasSio1s Tots ev aryopa Kaneva Kat 
mpospwvovat adAnros, eyorres “ calling out at one another” 
(e et adclamant ad invicem dicentes; a qui clamant ad 
alterutrum dicentes). 
U 





290 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


a 12. wv Se avtny o Incous tpocepwrycer xas evmev avty * yuvat... 
not rporedwvncev avrny xat but mpaceternze? nat evrev av7n all 
authorities. 

Then in Acts: 

xxi. 40. Emcotpepravros Se avrev o Tavdos eotws emt Tay avaBabpwv 
KaTeceloe TH KELP TW AawW. TOAANS be cHyNS YyevouENS TpOTEpw- 
vyae Ty EBpaids Sarextw Aeyov * AvSpes adeAdor.. 

Could anything be more Lucan or more shotractive ? Paul 

- calls out in the Hebrew dialect to the crowd generally. In all 
the N.T. there is only one more occasion where the word is 
used. This follows close here at Act xxii. 2: 

Axovaoavtes b¢ ot: 7y EBpatds Stadextw mpocepwver avo... 

D here omits avras but the others have it. 

The avrors here however stands in a different position to that 
in Luke xxiii. 20, for it is the answer and recognition that the 
shouted tones of the “apology ’”’ of St. Paul to the crowd had 
been addressed to or at them, and at no others but the Jews 


forming the crowd in Jerusalem. 
Luke 7 


xxiii. 23. Kat catioyvov at dwvat avtwv (—xat Twv apyiepewr) NBL! 
130 it” [non ¢ f d 8] sah boh followed by W-H and Soden, 
although the latter has no new witnesses, and ignores Merx 
ad loc. (p. 490) “Die Streichung diirfte alexandrinische 
Redaktion sein.” 

This should perhaps be classed under the head of “ Latin and 
Coptic,” but it really seems to be an attempt at improvement. 
ata verse 13 the record says: wiAaros Se cuveadecapevos Tous 
apXsepers Kat TOUS apYovras Kat TOV daoy, and the scene is carried on 
uninterruptedly over the intervening verses to verse 23 without specifying 
any. particular part of the crowd which was doing the talking and 
shouting. Hence perhaps NBL etc, thought it was invidious to single 
out the chief priests as those who raised their voices above the crowd at 
the last. At any rate 892 and Paris” refuse to give us the text of NBL. 
Those cursive MSS with ¢ f d 8 and the rest of the Greeks, with the 
syriacs, support the ordinary text. (Consult Tischendorf’s note ad loc.) 
Observe that T ceases at xxiii. 20. That is why T is absent here 
{replaced by T’). 
Luke 

XX. 49. wavres ov yvwoto: avtw (prom. ot y.aurTov) Only ABLPT' 
33 64 Paris” Sod" W-H. The group does not look trustworthy, 
for it is unusual. All others oppose, including NW and latins, 
and fam 1 fam 13 do not sympathise with this change although 
making many similar efforts. Nor does Soden adopt auto in 


his text although he produces a little new support for it in 
his notes, 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 291 


(The coptics turn the phrase and the syriacs substitute 
Jesus.) It would appear as if the dative were more in con- 
formity with classical usage, and as if this handful of witnesses 
were “improving” the record. For on the other hand there 
would be no good reason for changing avtw to avrcv. The 
Latins preserve no trace of avtw. 

But ef. John xviii. 15 exewwos qv yowortos ta apxvepet followed 
by 16 0 addXos 0 ywworos Tw apyepet. In the latter case BO*L(X) 
substitute tov apxtepews. But Luke and John evidently do 
not hang on the same recension in B. When we reach Acts 
we find the dative : 


Cf. Acts i. 19. 0 xat yowotov eyeveto Tact Tels KATOLKOUaLY LANY 


ii. 14, 

iv. 10. 
xiii. 88. 
XXVHli. 22. 


28 


xix. 17. 


TOVTO UV fLtV yv@oToyv e€oTW 

Yvwotov €oTw TATiY ULV 
(Peter is speaking on all three occasions). 

YVWOTOY OVY ETTW ULV 

TWEept MEV yap THS ALPETEMS TAVUTHS YYUMTTOV HULV EGTLV 

. YoooToy ovy ectw ve 
(Paul speaking). 

touto de eyevero yoworoy wacw lovdaas te cat EAXQow 
(Wniter of Acts recording). 


To these can only be added : 


Acts 


ix, 42. yoooroy be eyevero Kad’ orns THs lowmns 


xv, 18. yowora am’ aimvos, OF yrwrroy amt atwvos TW KUPL®... 


Luke 


AD Iren™ ete. 
The fact remains that if avrw be correct in Luke xxiii. 49, 
we must accuse every other document but six of unnecessarily 
changing the dative to the genitive against Lucan usage in 
Acts. 


xxiii. 49. Immediately following the word avtw the mss NBDL Paris” 


ibid 


add aro before naxpodev against the great mass. D is perhaps 
influenced by d and Jat. But W does not do it, nor A (which 
has avtw), nor Y, nor C, nor R, nor X, nor thirteen other uncials, 
nor Sod**. It looks like accommodation to other passages and 
is the “longer” text. When we really analyse these things 
it becomes evident that the “junior” documents are not so 
much given to addition as some people suppose. Cf. parallels 
Matt. xxvii. 55, Mark xv. 40, where avo paxpofey is used. 
This should perhaps come under ‘“‘ purely harmonistic,” but 
we want to tie three things together here as to B. First avrw 
(pro avtov in this verse; second t+a7o; and third: 


. +as (ante yuvaixes) 3B only and sah [non boh] and Paris”. 


B is here deserted by the others and by L. Only Paris’ 
sustains it, which is more than hopeless for its case. Even 
u 2 


292 


Luke 


xxiv. 4, 


ll. 


18. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


W-H, who place avtw and +a7o in their text, relegate this a: to 
themargin. Soden adopts none of the three changes of B. What 
becomes of B’s authority elsewhere then in his estimation ? 

‘We have thus convicted B of three changes in this verse. 
One with ALP, one with NDL, one alone. They cannot all 
be right. So B must either be right alone in all three places . 
taken jointly, or accused of dealing unfaithfully with the 
record. I leave B to be judged here in the side light of the 
other testimony collected in these pages. 
ev Tw avropeta Bat (pro ev tw Statopecbar) NBCDL 4, preferring 
ahiatus.t Is it right against all others including W Sod 
892 and Paris”? Yet Soden adopts it in his text. St. Luke 
elsewhere (ix. 7, Acts ii. 12, v. 24, x. 17) always uses 
Scamopew. [Only in Luke xxi. 25 azvopa the noun is used 
and there a dvaf Aey. No other N.T. writer employs this or 
Siam opew. | 

In Luke ix. 7 D only changés xaz Seqmoper to nropetto. 

In Acts ii. 12 the S:qmopouv of most is made S:ymopouvto by 

NAB. 
Tavta (pro avtwy secund.) This is a distinct case of abandon- 
ing the “harder” reading. Hence many authorities do it. 
The sentence runs—very uneuphoniously — «a: efavyoay 
€Y@TLOY AUT@MYV WEL Anpos Ta PNHAaATA avUT@V Kat YMtoTOuUV 
avrats, (So most and f arm.) 

This second avtwy is changed to tavra by NBDL latt 
[non f] sah boh syr. But syr and bok turn the sentence 
round, implying an original difficulty. 

In Paris” ravra is in square brackets implying I understand 
from Schmidtke’s preface (but he is not very clear as to this) 
that the word is omitted. 

W is very clear and holds the second avrey, as does &92, yet 
Sod prints tavra in his text and has no new authorities to 
adduce for it. Cf. pers. 
ovouart (pro w ovoya) NBLNX Paris” 69 [contra fam] 213 
Sod**" et txt, b against all others and against coptic clearly. 
Tisch says “‘saepe Luc @ dvoua, 4 dvopa ut i. 26, 27, ii. 25, 
vill, 41, xxiv. 13, Act xiii.6; saepius vero certe in Actis ovopate 
ut 1.5, x. 38, xvi. 20, Act v. 1, 34, viii. 9, ix. 10, 11, 12, 33, 
x. 1, 11, 28, xii. 13, xvi. 1, 14, xvii. 34 ete. At nusquam pro 
ovopats testes Graect aut Latini w ovopa substituerunt ; 
contra pro w ovopa substitutum ovouate xxiv. 18, Act xiii. 6.” 





t This is not distasteful to them. See xxiv. 6 adda nyepty (pro add’ qyepn) NBLX 88 
Paris” as copt (sah AMAA ACTWOCN, bh AAAA ACPTWNC|), W adda 


aveatn. 


B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 293 
ae There is the matter in a nutshell. ovoyare is substituted 
for w ovoya, but not w ovouza for ovopat:t. The places he 
refers to last are Luke xxiv. 13 in this same chapter, where 
7 ovona refers to kounv Eupaovs. Here D and latins substitute 
nomine. 

Acts xiii. 6 w ovoze referring to the Jewish magician Barjesus. 
D again alone substitutes ovoyats xadXoupevov (d nomine qui 
vocatur) and some cursives ovouar:. C wv ovopa (cui nomen 
erat Lucif vg cui nomen e). 

But in the place under immediate discussion Luke xxiv. 18 
b is alone among the Latins to agree with NBLNX; note 
well the absence of a here, otherwise quite friendly to B. 
And D d refuse to make any change here. I believe the com- 
bination NBUX here to represent the same as so often before 
a wilful emendation, and N like b to have changed fortuitously. 
When 69 opposes the family it also has this significance. 

xxiv. 21. adda ye (+a) cuv macw tovros... NBDL Paris 1 33 d 
[non copt] W-H & Sod trt, The only others which insert 
kat, sah''* (syr cu sin pesh «ae rdov) suppress adda. ye. 

I am sure that this is mere “improvement” by NBDL. Why 
should ail others drop this nar? It is not by any means pleonastically 
objectionable (cf. Winer, p. 554, but see p. 700 “The particles adda ye, 
yet at all events, are in earlier writers always separated by some word (be 
it only a particle): see Klotz, p. 15 seq. This rule is not observed in 
Luke xxiv. 21 akava ye avy race tovrois TpiTHY TavTHY NpEpay ayer: See 
Bornemann in loc.” Winer says nothing about the endeavour of NBDL 
to supply this particle. They add the conjunction «a: instead. Blass 
indeed (Thackeray, p. 261/8) calmly accepts adAa ye nae as the “true” 
text, for he twice cites it thus without intimating that «a: is only found 
inSBDL. “The ‘best’ mss read so and so” is inflicted on us so often 
that it will be seen that the phrase has already caused Blass in a N.T. 
standard grammar to abandon all the other overwhelming evidence 
(+ versions) for the omission of car. He founds an argument on it, 
because p. 268 bottom he says “ Besides its use in this passage adda ye 
«ae is found in Luke xxiv. 21 introducing an accessory idea in an emphatic 
way” [yes, but by NBLD only !] “cp. ara xae ibid. 22, xii. 7, xvi. 21 ‘not 
only this but also’ as in Ph. i. 18 yarpw adda Kat Yapyoopat’’... 

But we contend the contrary, that the idea was not expressed to 
the satisfaction of NB, and so they introduced the «ar, for the very 
passage Blass was referring to previously does not have it, viz. 1 Cor. ix. 2 
adda ye vyty evat and this is the only other place where adAa@ ye occurs 
“@t adXots OVK Etut ATOTTONOS aAAa Ye Yuu ett.” As Blass says 260/261 
“ Still ye keeps its proper meaning in adda ye vutv expt 1 Cor. ix. 2 ‘ yet at 
least I am so to you,’ which classical Greek would express by separating 
the particles add vu ye.” 








294 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


« Observe pevovvye, KarTorye, OF Kat Ye (Acts ii. 18, 1 Cor. iv. 8) are 
not used here in Luke xxiv. 21, and therefore «ac is by implication absent. 
dia ye (Luke xi. 8) is used by the same author without any «a, and os ye 
(Rom. viii. 32) by St. Paul. Both these examples are important. 
Consult them, and observe in the second that adda follows. 

It is too bad that Blass should complicate these things for theological 
students by neglecting to state that «az in Luke xxiv. 21 is not read by all 
. but only by the few. 


Lak 
"xxiv. 83. nOporcpevovs (pro Pee err NBD 33 Eus boh [non 


sah] W-H & Sod txt contra rell et Cyr (fuse et plene) et e 
(diserte ‘ collectos in unum”). 

If NBD W-H and Sod be correct then it is a dak rey. for abpotw 
occurs nowhere else.and Sod:n adduces no new evidence! Whereas 
cvvabpoite i8 Lucan and occurs twice in Acts xii. 12 cuvdwrv te nrdev 
emt THY otxtay (rns) Mapas trys wntpos Twavvou Kat emixaroupevov Mapxov 
ov noay txavo, cvvqO porta pmevor Kat Mpocevxyouevot, Acts xix. 25 ous cuv- 
aOpotcas Kat Tous TEpt Ta ToLaVTa Epyatas etre - avdpes... where NB 
leave the compound word undisturbed. But in Luke xxiv. 33 there is a 
second little cvy which seems to have disturbed these critics, a ‘nicety ’ 
of Eusebius probably, for the sentence runs: «at avacrartes avTy Tn 
wpa vieotpeyay es Ane nat evpov suynOporcpevous Tous evdexa Kat 
tous ZYN avrots. 

xxiv. 39. «at capxa katootea BY, Evidently a very ancient “improve- 
ment.” Tischendorf’s note is so arranged as to B that it is 
not at all clear and separates B from the supporting evidence. 
For Iren™ has ‘“‘ neque ossa neque carnes habet,” and D and 
Dial turn the phrase, bringing the one xa: before capeas. 
Thus D ogtea ove exer xat capxas, Dial ogtea Kat capxas ovx 
eXEl, also TVEVLA yap capka Kal ooTEea OuK eK El. 

Bui all the rest omit the double «az. 
I dislike to make the following suggestion, as so many scholars think 
such things are far-fetched, but if B or its parent were using a graeco- 
: copt (vide OponBevres just above) it is' possible that Teq just before capy 
in the bohairic column would have ine his eye, and his mental process 
involving the thought of Greek te...«az, have caused the first <a: to flow 
from his pen. In doh it is thus: 
NHA eovonTed cAPZ Qt KAc KATA put 

W-H do not follow B here, which is an admission that they con- 

sidered B to have been guilty of trying to ‘‘ improve.” 


Omission changing the Sense. 


v.83. —Sanr. NV BLWE Sod™ 38 157 2° (Sod) 892"? [non 
Paris®’] copt W-H & Sod tat against all and &*. 


Lutte 


B IN ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 295 


This makes a statement out of it, instead of a question, which our 
Lord answers in verse 34, although in verse 34 it merely says 0 Se encous 
evmev pos avtous. Possibly the absence of azoxpibers here led to excision 
of d:ate above. I do not see why all other authorities should add Sate 
however. W-H do not even place Satz in margin and have no note on 
this in ‘Select Readings.’ Why should X* have it? There must have 
been some marginal note in the Egyptian copies leading to excision in 
B, followed by the corrector of NX. For excision it must be and not 
“neutral” or “pre-syrian.”” Some bok codd have it. W omits, but ¥ 
Paris” have it. Possibly MAQHTAI{WANNOY MAOHTAIAIATIIWANNOY 
was misleading. Tregelles correctly refers to Mark ii. 18 where the 
account is as follows :— 

xat noav ot paOntar lwavvoy xar ot hapicator (vel tov daptcawr) 
VNaTEvOVTES, Kat EpYovTat Kat Aeyovow avTw* Seats ot paGynrat lwavvou Kat 
ot (uaPnta:) Twv dapicaiwy vnarevovery, ot de cot (uaOnrat) ov vnoTevOVELD ; 

Here the statement (implied by the loss of S:ave in Luke) is first 
made, as in these ampler accounts by Mark, and then Sate follows. 
Possibly in an endeavour to harmonise with Mark, the dar: in Luke 
was marked in the margin of some copies. Modern commentators 
generally seem silent as to this important change. Ter¢ does not help. 


Addition for the Worse. 
Luke 

xiv, 34. +ovy (post xadov) “ xadov ovy ro ada” at the introduction of 
a new subject, quite divorced from xiv. 33 jin. which closes 
the previous subject. +ovv is read by NBLX fam 13 only 
with boh pl [not all, and not sah]. It is a simple error in 
boh for the word in both sah and boh for salt ends in o-y and 
the oven crept im and not out, as sah shows when it disagrees 
thus with its friends NBL. The ending on in Greek may 
have led to the addition. But it is quite uncalled for and 
is not an example of the “shorter” text. W-H and Sod 
diligently follow NBLX bof and have no marginal alterna- 
tive. And I claim that they are absolutely and utterly 
wrong here. W knows nothing of this, nor D, nor syr, 
nor laf, but Paris’ and 892 with Sod*°'*? preserve this 

old error. (Cf. Merx ad loc. p. 321). 

An illustration offers in the previous column of B as to how easy in 
uncial writing was such a mistake. At Luke xiv. 27 in the phrase ogres 
ov Bactale: tov atavpov eavTov Kat epyeTas oTriaw pov ov Suvaras evar pov 
padnrns B* writes OYN for OY prim., contradicting the sense, in fact 
making nonsense. 

(But in an addition for the better at xxiv. 39 ‘‘x a: capxa Kat oorea” 
by B we find Westcott and Hort as well as Soden refuse to follow). 





296 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


Subtraction for the Worse. 


In this connection add Luke xv. 9 tas giras nas yerrovas (—tas) 
NBL 157 247 Sod* %* boh™ W-H & Sod tat only (D tas yertovas xae 
gidovs). 

All others have tas before yerrovas including W and Paris”, which 
latter has tovs with M and five other min. 


Indeterminate. 


Luke 
iii. 17. Staxadapar (pro xat Siaxadaptet) N*B ae sah boh Iren™ 


Tertre" Heracl followed by W-H d& Soden without a shred 
of new evidence (contra rell et S* rell it Iren® Orig™ et 
contra DW 892 Paris* etc.). 


Examples of some passages which will always remain too difficult to 
adjudicate, omitted under Matthew. 


Matthew 
ix. 6. ecdnre NBEMUVAII al. sah bok syr lat 
Onte CD*EFLX al. et k videatis 
8. edoBnOncar NBD fam 1 22 33 59 872 Sod* latt ( praeter 
Ff vide infra) copt syr aeth 
eOavpacay C rell omn Sod” (vide B é G) arm 
Om. X Iren™ 


: f and goth conflate: admirantes timuerunt et 
The parallel is Luke v. 26 cas exotaats chaBev anavtas. It is wholly 
‘questionable whether NBD represent the true text here (although 
‘supported by att syr copt). The two readings are very old; observe the 
‘conflation of f goth (these two alone) which corresponds to Luke’s 
“exoTaats. : 2 


Indeterminate and difficult. 


Lak 
xiii, 7. +4" ob (post erm) NBDLT fam 13 892 Paris” 157t (+a 


ns) Sod? 37 1132 ¢¢ et § [contra A™] vg et vg¥ tates boh syr cu 
sin arm aeth 
Contra om. rell Gr omn syr** °&® diatess (Orig) Bas bis 
Tren 
This is an exceedingly hard place to judge. Soden and W-H follow 


t Cf. note on xix. 4, p. 279. 





B IN ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 297 


NBDLT with the addition without marginal note, nor have W-H any 
remarks in ‘Select Readings’ (although xiii. 8 is noticed as to «ompra). 
Observe this is a question of a longer text and not a shorter one. Had 
the positions been reversed I can understand a summary dismissal of the 
evidence of the other side as an accretion to fill out the sense. But here 
is an accretion on the part of the beloved authorities who are supposed 
to give us a ‘‘pre-syrian” pure and short text. I claim that we are 
justified in objecting to a theory which overlooks or refuses discussion of 
such a place in the notes. 

The situation is full of interest. Here is the despised 60h supporting 
NBLT. While sak opposes. Here is D joining NBLT, but that is 
explainable because all the Latins here go with d and NBDLT against 
the diatess arab; even 6 against A™. Here is wg* M8 opposing 
diatess arab. Were is Iren'™ opposing all the Latins. Here is Bastl 
joined to the Greek uncials (all but the five mentioned) and all the 
cursives (but fam 13 157 892 Paris® Sod™) against the addition. But syr 
cu sin with arm aeth (against sah) support. Here is Origen opposing the 
addition thus: “‘ znrorve ehOwr o Seatorns ern nbn Tpia etn EepXouar em 
THY oVKnY TavTNY Kat KapTroy ovK nveyxey...” We cannot refer to a 
parallel, because there is none. On referring to the new authorities, 
what do we find? ‘We find W does not add. We find does not add. 
(Neither apparently ¢ sid. Sod does Laura*™.) But Sod Paris” do add. 
We thus have two new authorities for the addition, and two against it. I 
should not go into this detail, but that I have not noticed elsewhere 
several changes in xiii. 1/6. Observe then xiii. 2 ravra for ro:mvra, 
xii. 3 oporws for wcautas, xii. 5 ecautws for ozoiws, xiii. 4 adrot for obros, 
RH. 4 +rous (ante avOpwrous), xiii. 4 ~ev (ante cAqp), ili. 6 > wedutev- 
pevny ev To aptedwove avtov, all changes adopted by approximately the 
same small group of Greek uncials, which shows at all events that in 
the neighbourhood of the passage under discussion there was community 
of origin. I consider that this passage in xiii. 7 requires the most 
delicate weighing in the light of all the claims of those friendly to B for 
the “shorter” text. Jn this same verse please to notice B* ALONE with 
80 substitutes rov torov for tv ynv. 


Conflict between B and Origen. 


I have indicated many places in the foregoing as to this. As to 
Origen why is he wrong at: 


Luke 
vil. 39. 9 awroyevn (pro ris antetat) Orig confirmed by D* 
viii. 15. evs ryv Kady ynv Orig confirmed by D 157 zt 
xii. 12. Omit ev aurn ry wpa Origen with 33 


19. —odXa prim Orig*** with Serapion 





298 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Luke 


xli. 19. amoxetpeva (pro xetpeva) N 235 348 Sod’? 6° Clem™* 
. : Bas Orig" bis reposita 
avattavou om, Clem (ff) : 
Keipeva...om. Dabcedet Leo 
: avacra ouv om, 433 . 
” sili, 24, +éa ts orevns (post evaeGew sec.) Origen solus cum (syr sin) 
xviii. 81. treAerwOncerar Orig 60 267 Paris” y** 2** ai!® 
oe et Sod'*** against rerecOncerac rell. 
Consult also such definite cases as: 
xxii. 3. xaXoupevov NBDLX Paris” al’ d W-H Sod txt 
Neyopevoy Sod 1004 1354 al. pauc. ; 
emtkaXoupevov Rell et Orig Eus (it cognominatur) 


I do not understand the science of following the elder Greek uncials 
against Marcion and Origen especially when combined in Luke. e.g. 
xxii. 4. avrors tapadw avrov NBCGKLIT Sod W-H txt without 
marginal alternative 
avtov Tapadw avtas) APWXTAA unc’ bec f g Marcion®'rh bis 
Origen Eustem bis 
(while D a de f 11 omit avrots). 
XXIV. 81. AaBovrwy Se avtwy tov aprov am avtou 
nuuynoav ot op8. avrwy Ddce autav b¢ SinvorxOnoav 
AaBorrwr S€ avrwy tov aptoy Sinvorx-{ o1 opParpor B rell 
O@ncav.avrav ot opParpo Orig 
Obs. syr sah diatess tevOews. There must be a connection 
between this and D dc e Orig. 

32. While B retains the two clauses ws...ws (only dropping the 
connecting «a: in the coptic manner with sah boh) Origen, no 
less than eleven times, omits the first ws eXaXee nuty with 
abce f,l r syr cu sin Ambr Aug. 

ii. 52. mpoexomter (+77) cogia Kat nrexia Kae xapite BW Paris” 
etc. and W-H (ev 7m cogia N1i copt Orig*™; —ry Cyr Epiph 
bis and all the rest as Sod'*) but Orig*'** omits the article. 

As regards the conjunction including D, while in some places of 
considerable weight, in others it must be also attributed to Origen, 
although sometimes we cannot quote him specifically. In this respect 
hear Hort (‘Select Readings,’ p. 70, col 2): “So that he (Origen) seems, 
in his Commentary on Matthew, to have written under the influence of 
the Western Ms or Mss which have so largely affected the text of this 
work elsewhere.” (Cf. Matt x. 28, x. 37). 


Conflict between B and Hort. 


Luk 
“xxiv, 12. Verse omitted by Tisch and Hort (following D abdelrn) is 
found in B. 


CHAPTER IX. 


B iw Sr. JoHN’s GOSPEL. 


Examples of editing by B. 


Johu 


ix. 6. emeOnev (pro emexpicer) B(C*?) Sod'** et W-H txt (ex ix. 15), 


36 init. —amexpiOn exewos xaceemev B, over an erasure, with W 
alone and T' [negl. Sod]. This looks like a mistake but BW 
add edy after eorcv and T' before zis cor. Sah elides amexpiOy 
exetvos kat but has ervey (nexdag tantum). Boh (with aeth) 
elides execvos (Acie posw mMEexAdc)), but syr sin emphasises this 
thus “He that was healed saith to Him.” a has respondit, 
eliding exesvos nat exrev as (A). For ille g substitutes alt. 

The new mss T’W with B elide amexp:On exetvos and BW 
have edn after eorw instead of erev before ts ears and T' 
writes ae ey tis ectiv xe; (observe N in verse 37 has ey, while 
all have edy in verse 38). The trouble has arisen over the 
repeated expressions in verses 36, 37, 38, 39, and if anything 
were lacking to show how B operated this makes matters 
clearer. Being in doubt in verse 36 and casting forward like 
a hound he observes the varieties of wording; he writes 
something in and then cancels it again, substituting efy later, 
which, notwithstanding the support of ‘I'W, is very unlikely 
here, and belongs later in verse 38, and not in verse 36 with 
BW, nor in verse 37 with &. 

Hort (Vol. I.‘ Text,’ p. 557) says: “‘ Even when B stands quite alone, 
its readings must never be lightly rejected, though here full account has 
to be taken of the chances of clerical error and of such proclivities as can 
be detected in the scribe of B, chiefly a tendency to slight and inartificial 
assimilation between neighbouring passages.” But the trouble is that 
while saying this Hort did not recognise the places where B is guilty of 
this but printed them—in this case in his margin. 


Solecisms of B, and many that may be considered almost as such. 
John 
i. 4 fin. —twv avOporer Be! 


13. —ovde ex Pernpatos avdpos B* 17* Clem “4 Bus lib? 
Arxtls vid in Psa 21 (Tichon"®) 
W-H do not omit, but why not? True Iren and Tert 
witness to it, but W-H might have omitted this with Clem 
Athan as well as many other things. 





300 


John 


i. 14. 


iv. 


15. 


21. 
ii. 17, 


19. 


23. 
iii. 16. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


~ Kaz (ante adnOeas) Bre : 

(Boh has the usual Nese secesent, but sak Ot ae. 
Neither use o-vog, here.) ; 
0 etray (pro ov eczov) B*C* and &* (Orig?) and W-H 
txt (non R.V. Sod). Both coptics have “and crieth out saying” 
(equtw ze2eoc). Taking verses 14 and 15 together there is 
some significance attaching to these things. Tisch does not 
quote copt for erwv. Atany rate the community of origin of B 
and cop is established (as against others) by verse 16 init where 
ort init (for xac of many) is also the reading of the coptics. 
ov ouv TL nreELas et B*! vid (variant al.) 
>eotiv yeypaupevoy (pro yeyp. exriv) B™ cum Sod'8" et Chr 
Cyr (Epiph nv yeyp.), but against all the rest, and Oxyr®”’ 
yeypappevos (sic) exrev. 
qptow nu. (—ev) B et [W-H] Orig*™" Tert 1/2 Ambrst 
(cf. sah), but against all others and Clem Orig’+ Eus Chr Cyr 
Iren™ (Evst 47 with Ign d:a tprav nuepwv). 

(Thereagainst in verse 20 B has ev with the mass and Nac 
omit with Clem.] 
ev Tw Tacya TH EopTH (—ev sec.) Bt 
tov viov (~avrov) SBW soli (et W-H, non R.V. Sod) Not 
even L or T® nor ¥ nor 892 nor Paris” nor even 33 omits in 
this important place; nor d which begins again just here. In 


" fact syr sin insists thus: ‘“‘ His Son His only,” and sah “ His 


46. 


52. 


Son His only Son,” and Tertullian is clear. 

Having once stated this in verse 16, there is not so much 
harm in omitting avrov in verse 17 as do NBLT’W fam 1 22 
262 2P¢ (Sod) Sod"! Cyr Ath. 


. “TO TrEUpa B* et h*'*? syr sin? soli vid 
» +#tw (ante lwond) NB soli vid [W-H] 
. <n yun B and syr sin only (see under Syriac). 


W-H tzt omit then alone with B. R.V. and Sod restore it. 
N* substitutes execvn for 7 yur. 


. suvmrOov our (pro ws ouv auvydOov) B**' of. e inter latt. 
. Oca tyv AaAtav cou B™ cum Orig™, contra N° rell pl Sea rqv 


onv Nadav et Orig ex Heracl. (Sta ryv onv paptuprav 8*D b dlr) 
nrbev ovy madw ev xava (pro nr. ovy wad. Ets THY Kava) 
B™ (nec mutav. correct.) cum N Sod 43, See under “ Change 
without Improvement.” 

THY wpav exewwnv (—Tap avtwv) B" cum boh8. NACDKUM 
and W have tnv wpav tap avtwv, 

and LPAA unc’ have rap autev tyv wpav with Chr Cyr. (Sod! ™ 
THY wpav, —Tap autwy but without execvny which B has.) 


ibid fin. avtnv (pro avtov), of the boy, by BA, simply an érror. I 


might point out that even here B has the countenance of 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 301 


Joho 
another Ms, yet it is an error common to both (avro 892). 


Instead of grasping therefore at any support for B readings, 
and where support is found, of adopting them, let us be a 
little more circumspect. 

The prophecy which I adventured on page 12 has come 
true. Observe that von Soden’s witness & 3871 (a Ms at Sinai 
No, 260) now supports B’s hitherto unique OponOevtes in 
Luke xxiv. 37, and that Sod (a ms at Athos, Pantel. 28) 
supports B’s theft in John ix. 6 of eme@nxev (for eweypicev) from 
verse 15. See also John viii. 59 —de B now supported by W. 

tv. 7. pos exov (pro mpo evov) BL only and St. 1550 txt. This 
seems to destroy the sense and give the opposite sense. See 

‘Winer (Moulton edition, p. 467). 
W-H reject all the last seven readings which I have cited 


for B. 
14. —o (ante Incous) Bet [W-H] 
17. —Inoous NBW 314 892 Sod) (male de 127°? 


= LanraA™) soli vid et [ W-H]. (The aeth inserts Dom. Jesus 
after et respondit et dizxit tis, q has et respondit illis Jesus.) 
Otherwise all Mss and versions have it in an early position. 

19. —o mncous B c** Evst 47 Tert. This time 
without the agreement of LW or 892. In square brackets in 
W-H. No versions omit here either. 

But then if Tert is to be of weight here, why not at verse 25 where 
he omits (both in Prax and Res) «at vuv eatw with & and a b, but as B 
does not do it, Westcott and Hort fail to exhibit this “‘ shorter” text even 
in their margin. Had B joined here for omission they would of course 
have left it owt. Can anything be clearer that it is B and nothing else 
but B which they consider “‘ neutral.” 

Observe again verse 27 >Kae xprow edwxev autw efovcrav rocew by NS 
alone (for cas efovcray edweev autw Kpiow Torey) is exactly the method of 
Ter “ et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate.” This may be wrong, 
if you will, but in the next verse but one, verse 29, W-H avail of a 
“nicety ” of B alone of Greeks, as it is supported by Tert and sahae ff 
Aug (against Tren) to omit de in the second of the pair of clauses, 
printing o ta ¢avra instead of o: b€ ra gavda of all other authorities. 
The new Ms W has «at ot for oc &¢ (with m bok”! syr arm Iren™). We 
come back to the same old thing of some marginal remark in the parent 
of these Egyptian copies which led to change. 


John 
v.45. +-pos tov watepa (post o Katnyopev uuwyv) B inter om. 


On the other hand observe syr cw (alone of the versions) omits 





+ This must be a “sunspot” according to Souter (‘Text and Canon,’ 1913, p. 22). 
“ Little things,” however, “ show how the wind blows.” 


302 CODEX. B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Jobn 
Tpos Tov Tatepa occurring previously, and deletes it altogether 


from the verse, as only Ambr'”. 
vi. 17. See under “ Order.” 

22. See under “ Form.” 

46, — tov (ante Peov) B253 Cyr[W-H] (cf. copt). Here thearticle 
seems to be needed. & Sod’ and Syn™ substitute rov marpos 
in reduplication of the beginning ovy ott tov warepa ewp., and 
where some.Chr codd substitute on the other hand tov Geov 
while ND a b d ¢ substitute tov Geov for rev Twazepa at the end 
of the verse. (Evan 248 Sod*™* eubaninite wap avtov for 
japa Tov ev). 

50. arornoxn (pro ancary rell omn et Orig i B Eus W-H 

mg (reOunterar Clem™4 aronnrat V) 
53. —o (ante Iqaous) B et [W-H] 

58. cE ovpavou (pro ex Tov ovpavov) BCT 892 Sod'*™ (et W-H) but 

against all others and Orig Eus Cyr. 


t vii. 1. Inaous (—<) B et [W-H] 
3. See under “ Coptic.” 
6. mapeativ (pro eati) B*' See under ‘ Improvement.” 
22. ove (pro ovx) , B* 
23. +6 (ante avOpwnos) BN Sod" 33 p* 597 Sod! [non 


al, vid.] [W-H] 
34, See under “ Coptic.” 
37. mpos ene (pro mpos pe) B 
(Om. mpos we SD b de Cypr Viet Aug 2/3 Tisch) 
42 init. ove ( pre our vel ovys) B*N solt 
(ovy LT Orig W-H; reli ovye) 


t viii. 12. Iqoous (—34) B : - : ; 
$25. Incous (—8) —_-B (b***) | Cf. e¢ vil. 16 Incous (—0) RB 33 


t 34. Inaous (—0) B 814 7 Cyr soli et (W-H) 
¢ 89. Incous. (—9) B 
ibid. more ' B 804 ff vg (seq. care) et W-H txt Cf. Orig 


qui lecté in commune habet. 
+ 42. Inoous (—3) B Soa 
ibid. +6 (antenatyp) BY 
' 58. Incous (—6) BC e*"* Paris” ef W-H 
"BO, —be BW soli cum vg% [non W-H] 
ix. 7. See under “ Homoioteleuton.” 
27. +ovv post 7s B™ cwm aeth et georg et boh* (e¢ W-H marg) 
See under “ Coptic.” 
35. Inaous (— 4) NB et W-H 
t41. Insovs (-6) B 


t In all these cases W-H insist upon enclosing 6 in square brackets in their text. 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 303 
— x. 1. >upwreyo B" cum pers contra Mss omn et verss rell et 
contra Clem Chr Cyr Orig et Lucif. 
7. Ingovs (—0) 3B 118 [non fam] et [W-H] 

>vpw rAeyo  B pers ut solet again, showing that in verse 1 
it is absolutely premeditate. Icannot fathom the reason for it. 
In a dozen instances previously in this Gospel B has made no 
change; nor does he change on the next occasions at xii. 24, xiii. 16, 20, 
but at xiii. 21 he writes again vy Aeyw (against Orig’ and Ath al.) and 
none of Soden’s sympathetic Mss join B either at x. 1, 7, or at xiii. 21; at 
xiv. 12, however, he leaves Xeya vucv alone as at xvi. 20, 23; nor does he 
seem ever to vary Aeyw oor on the half dozen occasions whero this occurs 
except at Luke xxiit. 43, where BO*L arm pers have aynv cot deyo. 
Observe Origen with MWATI latt for yu Aeyo at Matt xxi. 27, and W 
alone at Maté xviii. 19 for vzev Xeyw. The noteworthy thing about B in 
Matthew is that he uses the order avrw emev with pers in xv. 15, and 
soon after at xvi. 4 has ate: for Syte: alone of Greeks with pers arab™, 
Cf. N pers soli Matt xviii. 19 avrors yevnoerar. All in the same Semitic 
Gospel and W and N in the same chapter and verse in different 

phrases. (Cf. Luc xii. 22 where ups Aeyw is probably original). 

John 
x.18. tavtqy evtodny (pro rautTyy thy evTodny) B*" cum Sod. 
(Error ex homototel. vel ex lat.) 
23. Tnoous (—0) 


B 
25. Incavs (~0) B | et [W-H] 
BQ. > wodAa epya data uur cada B™! vid cum Sod (Patmos 92) 

This order is otherwise unique among the Greeks. NAKAITIW Ath etc. 
Sod" have wodXa epya xara edecka vuw, DLXTA and most have rokda 
kaha epya edeita vutv, while W 220 Hust 54 b gat syr sin Tert Thdt omit 
cada, and 127 and 245 Epiph omit epya. The omission of xada by W 220 
Evst 54 b gat syr sin and Tert may be basic. The copies were evidently 
marked in the margin, and B shows this by slipping in the word later 
than the place in which it belongs. His order and his reading can 
certainly not be called “neutral,” although Hort actually follows B here 
jn his text, which he invariably does when a variety of readings confront 
him, and he clings to B to help him out of the difficulty of choice. But 
the result is only to get further into the mire of idol worship. Souter’s 
edition of the R.V. condemns Hort by going back to the textus receptus 
and printing woANa cada epya ederka vty with D and the majority. As 
# matter of fact the versions point on the other hand to the order of the 
8 group, and W joins b and Teré for suppressing xada altogether. 
(Tischendorf and von Soden forget to mention Tertullian). 

I notice this matter at some length, because basic principles are 
involved. And these are that in a question of varieties of order, with 
omission of a word by some, the probabilities are, first, that the omission 
is neutral, and the word has been supplied from marginal indications, 


304 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


or, second, that the omission is an error from carelessness and the matter 
mended from marginal observations. 

In both cases the margin supplies the missing word.f Mrs. Lewis 
has very clearly stated this truism (Old- Syriac Gospels, 1910, p. vii.) 
which I have quoted on p. 380 of my Genesis of the Versions. 

Bat I am sick and tired of being told that Hort’s methods are sound, 
his principles good, and his text the best yet published, when again and 
again he falls into a common trap like this, and follows a singular variety 
of order read by B alone, while the facts show that the order in B has 
been caused by the addition of a word out of the regular order, doubtleas 
from marginal indications. 

How entirely unscientific are the principles involved can be seen 
from the passages we have adduced within one chapter (x.) and within 
eight verses (18/25). Here is the record: 

John x.18. npev (pro atper) SB quite alone and W-H. Cast out by the 
Revised Version text.t 
che eee a 
+ Observe beyond at xviii, 40 under this head, and ander “ Order” at iv, 9, vii. 12, 
88, xviii. 2 and xvili. 5. 
‘A small matter will illustrate this. St. John x. 42, being a very short verse at the 
end of the chapter, we read the tiny verse with thirteen variations: 
qodAot ouy extoreveray eg avTay Exet W sol 
“gat moANOL EmtoTEVTaY 416 AUTO EKEt NBDLXy¥ 1 83 157 218 248 249 2™? 
Paris” al4 d eg? sak boh arm acth W-H. 
rat woddor emiorevguy ers avrov (—exer) 118-200 pers doh*™ syr pesh sin tt omn 
(praeter d 8) vgg omn, 
xat emtorevcay ecg avtay roAdor (—exe:) Sod vid 


Kas emLaTEUTGY TOAAOL 5 aYTOY Exes AK ?MUII fam 18 254 ec" p*" w'" goth 
Sod, 

kas emurrevaar €1s auToy WodAoL exes 280 vic 

kat emtorevoay es avroy exet TOA X? (= Sod’ ‘4, Munich 208) vid 

xas emtorevoay wodhor ets avrov (—exet) K? 16 (sol inter gr) 

kay EMLOTEVTOY TOAAOL Exes ELS AUTO EGHSIaa minn mult txt ree 8 

Kat emorevoay €xeét mOAAOL ELS GUTOY 28 235 a'* 

cat € avrow emorevoay Toddor e€ avrer (—exe) arab (sed hab, exer codd™'*) 

woXAo! Towvruy eTLOTEUoUY ELS aVTOV Chysts maveer 

moNXot exet emorevoay eas avToy Chrteé tno 


K? (Scholz) Evan 16 118-209 (Lake) Sod" with al? the Latins [eacept d 8] and syr 
pesh with syr sin and pers and Chr omit exet altogether. If exes belongs in 40 jin. (eyr sin 
and pers transfer it to the beginning of verse 41) exer may well be redundant st the.end 
of verse 42. At any rate we have Jatt and ayr this time combined {without D d] against 


_ all the Grecks [but Evan 16 118-209 Sod™*] for omission where the others vary the order 


[seo further in xviii. 2]. The inference is that exe: came in from the margin, but very 
long ago (the ms 249 adds exes in the following psssage in xi. 1). 

Readers often made notes in the’ margin of a ms. Now it was a pious exclamation ; 
now @ parallel passage from another book; now an antiquarian note, or the expression 
of a difficult phrase, Such notes often found their way into the toxt, and sore is the 
resulting confusion."—(Canon Glasebrook : ‘The next Revised Version,’ Contemporary 
Review, May 1912.) 

‘At John x. 88 just above, « most difficult place to judge, John Damaacene conflates 
three readings: wa yvore, kat miorevonre, Kat eTeyworKyre. 

+ See under ‘‘ Change of Tense.” 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 305 


Juhu 


x. 25. ove emiotevoare (proov mictevere) B 4 (33) 71 157 and several 
other cursives Sod'!™ f Chi" 2/7 and our 4.V., Not followed 
by W-Ht 

82. cada post uyuv 3B alone with Sod" and W-H. Cast out 
by B.V.t 

The examples of change in x. 18, 32 are not allowed in the R.V.° 
text representing Hort’s own closest followers. The third case (x. 25), 
occurring between the two others, where he does not follow B, is a case 
where he certainly should have followed B. Not only has B quite 
respectable support for the reading, but grammatically it must have 
appealed to Hort: “dawexpi@n adtois (0) "Incods - elrov tyiv cai ove 
ématevaate.” So writes B. “I told you and ye believed not,” exactly 
as our version of 1611. It would really seem as if Hort had some spite 
against King James’ translators, for when he can follow them (B teste) 
he refuses todo so.§ He prefers to reject B and its supporters for a rapid 
transition of tense: “elroy iyiv xai ob movevere,” ‘I told you and ye 
believe not.” 

Need I say more concerning such a non-principled and unscientific 
base for Hort’s structure? Brick by brick it is crumbling, but it is not 
creditable that it has taken so long for the “‘ powers that be '’—scholars 
in fact as well as in name—to see the weak points. 


Solecisms (continued). 


John is 
x. B4. Inoovs (— 6) BW soli et [V-H] 
Ki. (See under other headings) 
xn. 3. Incov (—7ov) BY et [W-H] Cf. xix. 88 - 


ibid. ewdnaOn (pro erdnpoly) B*'. See under “ Synonyms.” 

10. cBovdevoavro Se kas ot apxtepers B*! cum vg™ et goth (than 
auk). Observe one sai ms which adds “the Jews.” “ Took 
counsel therefore [for sah with Greek MU and a few substitute 
ovv for 5¢] the Jews with the chief priests.” 

12. 0 oxdos modus (pro oxdos Tokvs) BL soli vid cum boh (see 
under “ Coptic ”) et W-H txt (nil in marg). Their phrase is 
© oxdos modus o EXOwv for oxAos Todus o ehOwv. Clearly an 
attempted “improvement.” N*A 2°° go at it another way, 
and subdue o before e@wv, thus: oydos todus eAPwv. Sod “4 
0 oxdos 0 Todus oO EdOuy. 

13. expavyacay B*™ vid (and see under “ Change of Tense"’) 








t See under “ Change of Tense.” 
t See here supra. 
§ I do not mean that B is right, but that Hort's avowed principles, acted on con- 
atantly elsewhere, should have been followed by him here. 
x 


306 


Joho 


10. 
18. 


2627. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. Matter of order B*' sak See under “Order.” Cf. also bok. 
. pov TO ovoya (pro gov To ovopa) Band Hwan only.. See 


under “‘ Hopelessness of considering B neutral.” 


. ou B" and sah™™ boh™ and a (and (W-H)) 
. be pro ow W r. 
. — mas Ba soli See under ‘ Syriac.” 


_ >merpos otov B™ cum W (Note that in D Sodio nace 


Evst 32 otvev is omitted, and in c* syr sin wetpos is omitted ; 
no doubt the change of order in B is the result of an addition. 
Just as in the previous verse, the order eqoous aut (for avrw 
tnoovs) by BACL Orig is probably due to original omission 
of avrw as witness DC*¥ [teste Sod non Lake] 7 213 Sod b 
del m boh arm) : 

tngous (—9) B Orig soli vid, et W-H 

eve (pro en exe) B*' [See under ‘“ Change without Improve- 

ment” as to the rest of the verse] 


. WEE TEUNTE BC Orig 1/2 See under “ Change of Tense.” 
. Pup Aeyw B* cum pers against all others and Orig th. 


This is the third occasion of this. See above at x. Land x. 7. 
Hort neglects all of them. 


. Inzous (—0) Be 
» » BMwaia| @(W#] 
. —To (ante yapuor sec.) Bt 
. Incous (—4) BL et W-H 


. Note also here Inaous (—6) BAC*L Sod®* 22 vw" Sodt® 


1248 1443 aoainst the mass. ) 


. axodovew (pro axohovOncat) BC* soli et W-H. See under 


“Change of Tense.” Note that B has axodovfew apres but 
C vuv axodovbery. (In 47 157 485 d** vT and the “Latin” 
codices 56 58 61 aprt, which is the source of the change, is 
omitted.) 


. meorevoets Be (See under ‘ Coptic” and also ‘‘ Change of 


Tense.”’) 
7a pnyate, a eyo (—deyo) up att euauTav ov MaAW = BB. 


. 9 (pro pevn) fin vers post awva B 6 soli vid et W-H marg. 


From the variety of positions which 7 occupies in B, 8, LQX 
Cyr Did, whilst the evn has to be accounted for as well, it is 
clear that 7 came from the margin, whether as a correction of 


Hevy or not, 
t+eyo Bl 314 soli (ef. X 33 127 Sod™ t eyo exrov 26 jin.) 


+ This is a family of five uss (vol. i. p, 249) containing Cyril of Alcxandria’s com- 
mentary on St. John’s Gospel. It is a nice link between B and Alexandria. Cyrid 
seems to have placed eyw before etvov, instead of after it as B does, in order to be sure. 
that it came in 26 yin. and not in 27 inté. See below again at xvi. 18 B with SodK«, 


John 


xviii, 1 


RB IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 307 


See under both “ Syriac’ and ‘‘ Coptic.” W-H insert at end 
of verse 26. 


. ovde ev (pro ovdev) B™ vid. Cf. copt (om. D d). See under 


Porm.” 


. ovde ets (pro ovders) B vid. Cf.copt. See under “ Form.” 
. 0 av Oedmre (pro o cav Oednte) B™ vid. See under ‘‘ Form.” 
. pov tert. B' (inter gr). See under ‘ Latin.” 

. 8 (pro a) B™ (inter gr cum Paris”) et W-H txt. See under 


* Latin.” 


. ~upassec. B et [W-H] 
. es THY adnOeav macavy BAY Sod* soli cum Orig Did Cyr)) 
. —terake. B218 897 aeth soli et [W-H] (Vide infra xviii. 39, 


xx. 13.) 


. Incous (—6) BLW solt et W-H 

. Inoovs (—0) BOW Sod #2 ¢ et W-H 

. Igoous (~6) XB [non W] Sod? et W-H 

. marnp aye sic (pro watep aye) BN soli. [Sod neglects N.J 


Cf. xvii. 21, 24, 25. (See under “ Change of Case.”) 


. nev (pro nunv) B*! haud dubie per incuriam, quia seq. per 


aUTOV. 


. “EX TOU KogpHOV AAA LWA THPNONS avTovs B*. [Burgon quotes 


Athanasius for this (‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark’) but I 
cannot feel sure that this is beyond challenge. If so it is 
another link of B with Alexandrian copies where a saléws was 
made from avraus to avrous.] 


. —77 (ante ddnPeig) B™ vid cum Cyr* ef Sodiam Ct ™ (habdet 


dis Cyr°™). See under “ Latin and Coptic.” 


. +7 (ante ar70era) BW Paris’ soli cum sah boh (syr), See 


under ‘‘ Coptic.” 


. matnp (pro matep) BDNW soli vid et W-H [DW non in 


ver 11 ut B} 

. wmamnp( ,,- 4 ) BAN soli vid et W-H [non DW, non 
Clem] 

. TaTnp dikate sic BAN(aarnp Siatac) solt vid et W-H 


[non DW, non Clem] 
Inoous (= 64) NBL" soli vid et W-H [non Wrell] (Cf. 
xviii. 23 e¢ alibi) 


. See under ‘ Order.”’ 
. ~ex sec. B814™ et [W-H] See under “Coptic.” —ex tev 


N&® ete, 








+ This is a codex at St. Petersburg. The other Sinai, Jerusalem, and Athos codices 
sympathetic to B elsewhere do not elide these articles in St. John if they have been 
properly collated for Soden. 

¢ CA. BN at iv. 46 ev cava. 


x2 


308 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


"aviil. 5. eyo crus tgoous Ba. See under “ Order.” 
$15. >qvaoros nv BW 4 Paris” Sod**® W-H marg (with a 
ef far aur gat syr boh) See under “ Order.” 
31. werdatos (—9) BC* Sod?" soli et W-H 


Since I have noted in this Gospel where B omits the article 
(alone or in a small roinority group) before Incous, I note this 
also. It may be a concurrent version influence (which is the 
more probable and an error oculi) or carelessness, or a prefer- 
ence. The reader is capable of judging. But while at xix. 5 
B omits 6 before Iycovs and 6 before av@pwrros in the same 
verse, in both of these particular cases absolutely alone, Hort 
places [sc] before Iycovs in square brackets but leaves é 

before av@pmmos. What kind of editing is this ? 
36. ~av Br" cum J" Sod™' (as the versions; and cf. a b e aur 
2g”) 

There is a treble variety of order here : 

ol uTnpeTa ay of enoe yywvitovTa AD? N and most Gr. with 
q 5 Orig 1/4 Hier™ 

ot umnperas os epor av yyautovra cf far vg#* aeth Aug, and 

ot uTrnpeTas ot enor nywvitovTe av NUXB™*WY 1-299 [son 
209] fam 13 33 91 213 249 Paris®? Sod fam KON arm 
Orig 3/4 Chr Cyr et W-H Sod tzt, 

the latter order probably being of an “ improving ” tendency. 

It is the order followed by Hort, who neglects the omission 

of av by B. 

39. —ev (anterw wacya) B* cum Sod** et [W-H] (Cf. aeth’’, 

Cf. syr. Of. q “per pascha.” Cf. a om. wv tw nacxa. 
Rell omn et sah boh + ev plane) 

(40. —mavres NBLXW [non 28 male Scho Tisch] 71 213 249 348 
435 hal al. minn® Sod 1246 1443 fam Ki CN Orig ?, but absolutely 
no versions except pers, which Tisch and Horner neglect to 
mention, but which probably represents syr sin here. That 
document is wanting from xviii. 31-xix. 40. I merely record 
this matter here as W-H of course omit, and Soden omits. 
The omission of wavtes has no other version support, and I do 
not think we can neglect all the Coptic and Latin codices 
in such a place. No reader of Hort’s or Souter’s edition of 
R.Y. text would ever suspect that mayres occurred in any 
document! Probably the omission of waves took place from 
misunderstanding a mark of deletion set against the word 
mam next to it, which word is omitted by GKUII many lat, 





t I enter such a thing here, as hitherto B has been recorded alone for it. The entry 
will serve to call attention to the additional support, and its possible source. é 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 309 
soln 

sah boh aeth arm syr pers arab. This is why the versions 
have wavres and not wadw, and I think are most likely right 
against NBLXW which dropped the wrong word. In oider 
to show that NBLXW form but one recension here, consult 
xix. 3 only three verses further on, and observe the form used 
of ed:docay by these mss and Cyril followed by 7-H and 
Soden against the rest for ed:dovv. The family appears to be 
complete, Soden quoting Ks as a whole for his five mss with 
Cyri’s commentary (p. 249, vol. 1.) besides C* (our 138).) A 
somewhat similar matter us to wadw and wavtes occurs at 
Mark vii. 14 to which Burgon calls attention in his ‘“ Causes 
of Corruption.” 

I do not think I am forcing an argument here by suggesting that a 
mark set between wad and wavres may have been mistaken for in- 
structions to delete wavres instead of wade. There are many Clear 
illustrations of such practice, and many other places where we can infer 
such a state of things. For instance, given the well-known and wonderful 
sympathy existing between N*™ and et, it is interesting to observe that 
where ¢ alone with A‘ Sod (= X® Munich 208) syr sin pers (aeth) omits 
mpwros in John xx.4 Salone is found to place it after ees to wonperov 
instead of before it. This change of order in % doubtless grew out of 
the addition from the margin of & and e’s common (Graeco-Latin ?). 
archetype of the missing word. 

(See under “Order” at iv. 9, vii. 12 83, xviii. 2, 5, as to similar 
matters concerning B, and previously under this head of ‘ Solecisms ” 
at x. 32.) 


John 


xix. 5. Incous (—6) B* vid et [W-H] 
ibid. avO patos (- 6) B™ vid [non W-H] . 
12. ay (pro eav) B™ vid (non W-H] 
28. Inaous (— 0) B Sod" [non W-H txt] 
30. Incous (—6) BW et (W-H] 


38. Tygov (—tov pr. locoe) §=Bet(W-H] Cf. xii. 3. 

xx. 13. +«a1 (ante Neyer avros) B aeth arab soli vid [non W-H] (q' 
quae dixit, Hus » Se eamev. georg Tune dicit. Rell omn 
ever avTots) 

Cf. B and aeth above at xvi. 18 and xviii. 39. 
(15. Incovs(~6) NRBLW min W-H; xx. 16 Incous (-—6) BDLO 
Sod! W-H; xx. 17 Inoovs(—é) BDLM*¥ W-H; xx. 
24 Incous (~c) NBD W-H against Cyr; xxi. 13 14 
Inoous (~6) BC?D W-H against Cyr) 
17. > yn anzov pou (pro py pov antov) B Tert verss aliqg W-H™ 
(see under “ Order.”’) 





{ Compare shortly afferwards at John xx. 12 N ¢ alone together omit duo, 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


.+eat (ante tas xepas) BA only and W-H (See under 


‘' Improvement.”’) 


. twos bis (pro tiwev) B et W-H™ See under “ Latin,” 


“Syriac,” and “‘ Change of Number.” 


. Inoous (—3) B et [W-H] 
- Inoous (-8) BC et W-H 
. Iqaous (—6) B ef (W-H] 
. Ineous (-6) B et (W-H] 
. TamapoRatia BC 19 22 Sod'* Theophan b et W-H izt; 


xxi. 17 ra mpoBatia ABC Ambr et W-H izt) - 


. —avure tert. BY 249 ff Sod® Aitetasoman [non W-H t] 
. Kat aAdos Goce ce B" vid (ef. ord verss) 


. 0 Kat paprupayv (pro o paptupev) BW et Cyr (soli vid) et 


iii, 36. 


“Op” teste Soden (Cf. gat foss vg® vg™ aeth + ille) 

The additional testimony of W here is completely neutralised 
by a consideration of the few late Latin witnesses which 
sinply add <e for emphasis, as do BW Cyr when they add xa. 
The silence of the rest speaks for itself and we close as we 
began with the perfect assurance that B is to blame for an 
infinite variety of small as well as large mistakes made in an 
effort to improve the record. Hort places this last variation 
in his margin. 


Latin Sympathy. 


ove oerat fon» (—Tyv) NABCDT® W Paris” al. (“non 
videbit vitam ” latt) W-H et Sod txt contra tynv bwny rell et 
Ign Const Bas" Chr Cyr Thdé et copt. 


. Sedaxev (pro edoxevy) NBLNT ef W1 33 157 al. pauc. 892 


[non Paris*’] Ath Cyr latt W-H Sod. 


. 6 WroLov (—TO) NBLA [non D nee W] 33 118 181 213 


239 254 604 892 Paris’? Sod**? "8 soli with Cyr W-H Sod txt 
against all others and against both coptics. 


. See under “ Order.” 
. auto (pro avros) BDW d. Tisch and Soden quote sah 


Py 


bok for this reading, but it is doubtful if one can read this into 
them. The Syriac is also doubtful. The “neutral” reading 
(b ¢ dim (7) aeth? and (boh)) appears to omit both avrov and 
avto. [E* 253 read-avrov, but the readings to choose from 
are clearly avros, or avro, or plain omission, and avres is 
undoubtedly right.] Hort consigns avro to his margin quite 
correctly, and Souter's B.V. edition follows suit. autre appears 
to be an “improvement.” 

wapertw (pro ect in sec. loco) B*' and a few vulgates. 

See under “ Improvement.” 


’ 


B IN ST, JOmN’s GOSPEL. 311 


ue vii. 22. caBBatw (—ev) Bber soli 
44, eBadev (pro eweRarev) BLT [non minn] W-H [non Sod} Of. 
misit 1 ag. 

vill. 55. opotos vyev yevarys (pro opotos vio pevorys) BADW fam 
152 188 (= Sod®*) 157 254 2° ef latt: similis vobis mendaz. 
The dative is as legitimate as the genitive in Greek, bat there 
must be some reason for the preference of the small group 
here. It is opposed by % and the rest including Y 892 and 
Paris’ and Tert. See note under “ Change of Case.” Soden 

does not follow BADW. 

ix. 14. qv Se caBBarov ev 7 npepa (pro nv Be cafR, ore) NBLXW 
33 213 (—nyepa) W-H** Sod™ and ¢ ff in qua die, a br qua 
die, and ¢ (in quo = 213"), syr hier and Cyr, while vg® conflates 
with in illo die quando. This is opposed by D and the rest 
and 892 Paris” and none of the other cursives know anything 
about it. 

Observe here that the coptics and other versions are also all 
against it,t and that the vulgate knows nothing of this matter 
of NB. Therefore the codex similar in other respects to NB 
(see Wordsworth and White's Preface) did not have this 
reading, which proves that 682 and Paris” bere provide us 
probably with the real underlying texi of NB, rather than NB 
themselves. Isita Johannine improvementofXB? See Jobn: 

v. 9. qu de caBBavov ev exeivy Ty Dpepa. 
xix. 81. qv yap peyady 7 qpepa exetyy (vel exetvou) Tov cafSarTou 


ix. 19. >Sderet apts (pro apte Bhevae) NBDLUW 33 892 [non 
Parie”’] W-H Sod tribe d #1 syr sin hier pers {non syr pesh] 
Cyr Chr 1/2 (Bere: vuv Chr 1/2) against the rest and against 
sak boh and the other versions. 
85. ever (-avTw) N*BDW de boi™™ W-H™ Sod, against all 
the rest and syr sin and all the versions. 
40, »ot pet autov ovtes (pO of optes wer auTov) RBDLXWY 
fam 1 33 157 213 248 20° 892 Paris® Sod" et Sod? =" (Sod 
tet et W-HD) Cyr only of Greeks, but with all Jatt. The other 
versions vary. 

x. 12 init. 0 weadares (—copula) BGLW 1 [non fam] a aur ogg” 
boh"™s Lucif, against o suc. Se by most and Hus Chr copt and 
versions, and o de prof, NDXA Sod™™ Const Cyr. 

16, > Set pe (pro we 8x) NBDLWATIS 1 [non fam] fam 13 33 
348 w* God?®5 1943 1265 1219 Fyom Paris” neo al, vid] it 0g syr (sak) 


a iar 


} Syr sin however has: ‘And that asme day waa the Sabbath,” cancelling the 
whole of the rest of the verse. While the Georgian version alone reverses the order of 
verses 13 and 14, placing verse 14 first. 








312 
John 


x. 1%. 


xiii. 


18. 


29. 


CODEX BAND ITS ALLIES. 


Orig™ W-H Sod, but against all the rest of the Greeks and Eus 

Bas Chr Cyr and That. 

> pe oTTaTHp ayaTa (proo TaTnp ye aryaTa) NBDLXY [non W] 

33 218 248 249 Paris’? Sods* + ** ¢¢ vg Chr Cyr against the 

rest (M pe o warnp we ayana; Chr aur pe ayara o ratyp; gat 

dim. cf. boh) and syr diligit me pater. Me diligit pater meus 

Auct de prom. : 

npev (pro azpet) NB only and W-H. Not one single 

minuscule. See under “ Change of Tense.” Cf. gat tulhit. 

3 (pro és) NBLWW Eost 15 it vg boh [non 

sah} Tert (sed variant codd) Hil W- H et Sod txt. Contra 
rell et Cyr. 


3 fin. >epe rBatere NBLY Sod" 33 157 Paris Sod 


10. 


19. 
36, 


10 1279 ef drd id?! ng Ath against 8. we of DW most and ¢ f 
dl8 goth bok sah syr Epiph Thdt Hil. (Tisch omits to 
chronicle sak boh here against NBL). * 


. eplevev (pro eperver) B 21 soli, etabee fl [nondfrs 


vgg Aug (hiat q)] (cuew W, rell cuewev) Om. nar epetver exee 
syr sin, or perhaps om. eyevev and use waz exet (a8 does pers) 
to begin the next verse. 


. watapad avtov Jovdas Sipwvos loxap. NBLMXX*(=Sod4*) W 


Lauraé™ (Sod teste) b ff g 1 gat vg arm Orig" W-H Sod txt, 
against Iovda Sepevos Ioxap. wa avtov mapas. D rell oman, rell 
laté syr aeth and Origen many times. 

>ove eves xypecav NABCWW ae q Origm' Tert Aug W-H 
Sod tzt against ov ype:av exer of D and all the rest Chr Cyr 
but only d latin. The other Latins express non indiget (r is 
not available), while coptic is NeqPocpia AN- 

See under ‘‘ Order.” 

>axorovOnaas Se (uot) vsrepov NBC*LX 1 Sod'® [non fam) 
83 188 (Sod°*) 213 Paris? Sod" Orig Cyr and Latin order 
W-H Sod tzt, against DW the rest of the Greeks (and only 
d of the Latins) syr boh sah ete. This place deserves 
some consideration. The alignment of authorities is 
peculiar. 


xiv. 31. evrovgy cwxev pos (pro everesdato von) = BL 
and 
and 
and edwxev pos aero QP (negl. Tisch) 19"* (cdwxe pot o marTnp 


34 SeSmnev por ( 4, 53 » ) X83 J [lott practer dd) 
3 pot Sedaxevy Cyr et beg gat. 


evronqv 1 [non fam)). 


This is an interesting place, where all the Latins, except d 6, favour 
BLX 33, while N and all other Greeks with D have evere:Aato and d § 
only of Latins mandavit, against mandatum dedit or praeceptum dedit of 
the rest (Wordsw neglects to mention § definitely here). All the versions 
(including copt syr) are with the body of Greeks for everetkaro. Only 


BIN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 3138 


aeth fayours BLX and the Latin. Add 213 (Sod*) Sod'*?"° and compare 
his note. He avoids the reading in his text. 

It is rather a crucial passage in connection with the “ version 
tradition’ which here narrows down to the Latin. As in verses 26/27 
(see under “‘ Syriac") we have just had another apparent version influence 
it will not do to put aside too contemptuously my views on this subject. 
Souter (J.T.S., Oct, 1911, p. 120) says of me: ‘“ The general theory which 
underlies his views is that a trilingual or quadrilingual copy of the 
Gospels existed in early times, the four languages represented being 
Gréek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. He finds that this hypothesis, com- 
plicated as it is, explains certain individual readings in some Greek Mss. 
He rejects without reason, as far as I can find, the simpler hypothesis 
that Greek copies behind the Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions were 
different to some extent from all surviving Greek copies.” 

Now my dear Dr. Souter, if my theory be complicated (and it is far 
less complicated than some others) it covers admirably cases like the 
present, where it is not a question of ‘Greek copies behind the Latin, 
Syriac or Coptic versions being different to some extent from all 
surviving Greck copies,” t for here we have three Greek unciala BLX 
and two cursives (33 2°, of very critical repute [opposed here by Paris” 
and the other thousand] plus 1 and 19 arg) which give the reading of the 
Latins, WHICH THE REVISED VERSION DISAPPROVES, condemning it as a 
version tradition, and condenining Hort for adopting it, BECAUSE THAT 
TEXT GOES BACK TO everetAato. No doubt the latter is right. No doubt 
N and the mass of Greeks with D (and d 6 plus the versions) are right. 
Don’t condemn me in this cavalier fashion then, if you please, but look into 
these mutters a little more carefully. There is no note in your edition on 
this reversal of Hort in the Greek Testament, published in 1910. - 

Whenever Hort’s decisions are reversed in such a publication a note 
is absolutely due and called for, in order that students may see what is 
the present eminent opinion on textual matters to date. 

The evidence is withheld in several such passages, which is not a 
proper method, and I am surprised that the Delegates of the Oxford 
Press consented to issue the work without an apparatus covering the 
evidence in ali the places where Hort’s judgment and his readings are 
tacitly condemned, and where simultaneously B is condemned for 
falsifying the record. 

Bear with me a moment longer. Look forward only two verses 
beyond, At: 





+ Different is the situation at xv. 21 where instead of usw or yuas BD*LN? 1 33 
Paris” Laurad 1 (teste Sod) W-H and Sod txt with Petr“** write es vpas, while b o ff L 
write circa vos showing no Latin reaction on Greek from cirea. However d has in 
vos as syr, and one doh 13 EDUUTEN, instead of MUU'TEM, for the plurality of bok 
and all sak with the other Latins are opposed to any preposition. 


314 CODEX B AND [TS ALLIES. 


John 
xv. 2 fin. Hort reads wa >xaprov wheova< gepy with BLMXY 33 


157 213 397 Sod©*%1 Parie’t and W-H Sod txt Hus Cyr Novat 
Hil Orig™ syr pesh and suw THe Larrys in this order (8 and 
Clem ‘xaprov whem ; fructum multam e, fractum plus ogg and 
g aur gat; fructum majorem q, fructum ampliorem @ d 7, 
fructom plurimum 6 ¢ f ff U foss) but not {d 38, for d reads: 
ampliorem frum and § plus fructum in the usual Greek order. 

The Revision admits that Hort again followed the same version 
influence here, for the correct reading is adjudged to NDA the Greek 
mass and d 6, egainst BLMX 33 157 Paris” and the Fathers, for in the 
Testament of 1910 wa mXerova caprov depy is printed, but there is no 
note on it, although you pause to tell us that earlier in the verse D Cyr 
(and Clem) read xaprodopov for xaprov depov. [Since this was written it 
has become clear that Soden has no real critical principles either. His 
text is a curious exhibition of eclecticism (see below at x. 28, xii. 26). 
Here he follows Hort.] 

Oblige me once more by considering your theories—“ on the founda- 
tion (which) they have laid the future will do well to build” (‘ Text and 
Canon,’ p. 103)—in connection with this Oxford text. It reverses (with 
perfect correctness) the decision of BLMXY 33 157 Paris” Eus Cyr 
Novat Hil Orig™ and Westcott and Hort, although you still pretend 
that their foundations are secure. But if wrong at xiv. 31 and at xv. 2, 
twice within three verses; may I ask why we should follow B and Hort 
in countless other places where they have far less support than here? 
We have simply come back to individual preferences. We are still. 
floundering. We have no fixed principles of criticism. All the nonsense 
about “ neutral” “ pre-syrian” “ Antiochian” fades away, and we must 
begin all over again. We need critical principles; and I claim to have 
established that we have none. 

Jobo . 
XV. 9. >vpas nyatnca }=BDLY 1 [non fam] 83 ? 213 Sod [non 
Paris” non al. gr]abde fq [non syr copt] W-H Sod txt. 
Again sbandoned by R.V. 
10. tov rarpos (—pov) BY cum abe fq aur W-H Sod ixt. 
Abandoned by R.V. Sod adduces no new witness. 
[In all these places W is wanting. The ms lacks xiv. 25- 
xvi, 7.] 
1]. We must now add to this imposing list of Latin influence on» 
B the present place where 7 is substituted for wetxy by BADY 
only of Greek uncials and by a few cursives. All the Latins 
(except f) have sit. Against them are N and the rest and 





¢ Tischendorf obscures the situation by not specifically mentioning d 8 ss accom- 
panying the mags of Greeks. He simply says i/ vg as a whole to accompany BLMX. 


Jolin 


xv. 14. 


xvi, 12. 


xvii. 


xviii. 


18. 


1. 


11. 


6. 


10, 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 315 


Chr Cyr. The versions may be “ anceps” as Tisch, remarks 
as to Coptic, and pew may have come back from the repeated 
forms of perw in the previous seven verses, We need not 
quarrel about it, but the place should be viewed in connection 
with the Latin influence at xiv. 31, xv. 2, xv. 9, xv. 10 just 
discussed, before we accept Hort Soden and R.V. here. (Om. 
157.) Besides, consider the next place involved : 

eav trotnte 8 eyo evTedAopar vary B and Paris” alone of 
Greeks (against a and oca of the rest and Cy7) with a eq syr 
sin goth (Cypr) Lucif 2/3. Some, as Thdt and syr pesh aeth, 
emphasise “all which.” If B be correct all the rest have 
edited here, which is quite possible. Hort says they have, 
for his text has 6 following B®, bat the Oxford text of 1910 
denies it, returning to 4 as does Soden. Tales duces cacct. 
>exw vay deyew NBLYY 33 118-209 [non 1] 213 Sod™ b 
cl) f KF gimar gat vg Theogn Ath W-H Sod txt (Lert Cyr 
Hil Orig™ are on both sides), but all the rest oppose with 
DA « d & and coptic etc. for exw Neyew uv with Eus Did 
Orig Chr Thdt, and Paris” specifically with Aeyeru exw vpur. 
puxpov (—70) BL YWN* 121 124 [non fam] 213 397 Sod** 
Ns fame Eyst 60 Orig W-H (lat: pusillum vel modicum) but 
as jucpor is employed by all Greeks in verse 19 without 70, it 
is probable that Orig and BLYY are merely harmonising 
and improving here. Soden does not follow them here, 
although adding new witnesses, among them D which is 
wrong. “ 

—cou sec. That is to say: wa o utos SoFacn ce (instead of wa 
o wos gov S0faen ge) NBOW 47 64 Sod ™ [non ¥ non 
Paris’ non min al. vid] Orig 1/2 Vietorin Hili/2. Ido not 
know whether I should place this here or not. Perhaps it is a 
doctrinal alteration, but the only support among the versions 
is from a small Latin band, viz. d (against D*) e and f. The 
other Latins and all the Versions with D and the rest of the 
Greeks supply cov, while Origen is divided and Orig" witnesses 
twice against the omission. Soden’s text places cov in square 
brackets. 

atta: (pro otto) NB 229** 254 Sodio 12 195 8 art 408 soli 
vid cum d f W-H** non Sod (om. vg"). Cyril reads ovroc 
with the mass. 

—oTt NABDLNXITI ef WW fam 1 22 33 42 106 
127 138 157 265 Laura’ Sod’? 2°° wt [non Paris] and 
it vg W-H Sod, but against the rest of Greeks, the other 
yersions, including the friendly syr and copt and against 
Orig and Cyr. 

wrapioy NBC*LXW (pro wrov) Soden only adds 





316 


John 


xviii, 15, 


36. 


38 


xix. 7. 


28. 


29, 


38. 


41. 


xx. 19. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


one cursive Sod'* (a ws at Sinai) but: follows in his text. 
Cf. it vg: auriculam. [Non rell gr nec V Paris*.] 
See under “ Order.” 


” ” ” 


. Tiva Katyyopay gepete {—Kata) Tov av@pwrov tovray N*B 


Paris” ¢ ef ac q (Cf. aeth georg). This is against all others 
and Chr Cyr and b f fg gat vg (adversus) and copt syr. 

The common base breaks down here, for CLX so friendly a 
few verses before, and even WY with ¢yow in thia verse, 
abandon NB to their fate. Only Paris” stands by them and 
W-H without a word in their margin. Seden abandons them 
and has no new witness for omission, but he forgets to 
note @ c. 

-av B*3 Sod™' See under “ Solecisms of B.” Cf. abe 
aur ogg 1/2. This is quickly followed (against &) by a real 
Latin order: . 
ovdeysay evpioxw ev avre arriay BX 213 249 Paria" Sod™™ 
M4 KCN (a) Bee fg vg Cyr W-H Sod txt. 
Cyr vouches for it as the continuation of an Alexandrian 
order. It opposes: 
ovdeyiav artiay evpioxm ev avtw of NNWY al. plur ¢ goth (sah 
boh) syr arm Chr. 
Kata Tov vouov (— nov) NBD*""LNA et WY Paris*™ 
at [omn praeter g] vgg Orig et Orig™ Hil Aug Quaest, but 
against all the rest, all the minuscules, Cyr, and all the other 
versions. Soden places it in square brackets without adducing 
any new witnesses. 
>Iqaous edas BM®* Sod" * W-H™ b ¢ f fur aur Hil 
{against ews o Incovs % and many W-H™ Sod“, and 
against [dmv o Incovs E and a good many, and against the 
order of syr copt etc.) 
oxevos sine copula BAULXWY 61* Paris” a b e r foss 
; W-H [Sod]. 
loon 6 avo Apyaiaas most and W, but: Twond aro (— 6) 
Apis. BAD" (L)X?¥ 90 Paris” Sod** and latin, against 
both coptics diserte. W-H elide 6, Soden places it in square 
brackets. 
ny tePerpevos (pro erebn) NBW Paris Cyr Sod'2"* & 
W-H et Sod txt. (Sod ig LauraA!™ which Lake did not 
collate hereabouts). Cj. lat positus erat. Cf. Luc xxiii. 53. 
See under “ Harmonistic.” 
—Twy (ante caBBatwv) NBA, 33 Sod!" W-H Sod 


txt, (was caPBatwy W) The rest and Cyril" have the 
article. 





B IN ST, JOHN’S GOSPEL. 317 
Paes 23, tevos bis (pro tivoy bis) B*! ae f syr Cypr Orig™ Kus Aug 
Pacian Auct?™™ W-H™ [non Sod}, but against all else. 
Xxl. 6. esyvov (pro isyvoav) See under “ Change of Tense.” 

22. >av por axordovde: NABC*DW 1 [nen 209} 33 [non minn Ser. 
Matthaei Soden. The latter adds Sod™ (= Cyr)] lat Orig 
Cyr. (Om. 238 Chr). 

23. >ovTos o Ayes NBCDW 1 383 2°¢ at (syx copt) W-H Sod 
txt. The rest oppose with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2; anda few cursives 
with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2 and Origen omit ovros. 

24. +6 (ante ypayas) = cat o ypayas BD (Sod a xas yp.) 
33 2b d qr vg (a) (e) Gf) W-H tat. (8 writes o nar ypaypas 
with 265 348 Sod® Sod trt Cyr and c). 


Coptic Sympathy or Influence. 
i. 14, 15. Sea under “ Solecisms.” 


18, povoyerns Geos NBCL 33 boh [sah ita: ‘God did not 
any see ever; God the only son”) syr pesh aeth ete. [non 
Sod txt]. 


43 init (Steph Tisch, ver 42 W-H Sod), »yayev sine copula 
NBL 314 sah W-H Sod trt [contra rell et syr lat]. Boh 
with G fam 1 arm Epiph have ours ny. (ny. ouv Evst 15 3, 
ayyaryev 6 Paris”) 
fi. 17 uit. Absque copula NBUTX sah boh (more copt) Kus Cyr 
1/2 against all the rest and Epiph Nonn Orig. 
i. 8, adda ove B*" (pro add’ ove) [non W-H] Cf. sak boh, 
ambo aha 
16. adda exy §=BW soli W-H Cf. sah boh 
iv, 23. adda epyerate NBADW sah boh W-H [contra adW' epy. rell 
omn] 
v.42. adAa eyroxa = BDLW [non 28 inale Sod] 33 185 Sod**” W-H 
= sah boh 
iii. 13 jin. —0 avev tw ovpave NBLTYT! e¢ W 38 Sod [non 892 non 
: Paris" sak, boh 1/2, basm (frag Crum-Ken gr et copt) Cyr 1/2 
(Orig'* 1/3) W-H Sod txt, but against all others and it vg syrr 
(all except one codex of pesh) arm Hipp Diont Eustath { 
Amphit Did Epiph Chr That Cyr 1/2 Orig™ ™ “re Novat Hil 
Lucif Jac. 
lv. 16. cov tov avdpa B 69 [won fam] 71 74 248 254 430 
(Sod* ¥) Sod Est 32 60 sah bok Orig 3/6 W-H tat 
without marginal remark. (aov tev avdpa cav 6°) 





+ Tisch and Horner omit these witnesses. 





318 


iv. 51. 


¥. 


£3 


wi. 10. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


-against tov avépa cov of N and all else including WD 

892 Paris” Orig 3/6 and Cyr. 
—«anyyedkav BLN 185 213 Sod? #9 4mC bo} aeth W-H 
aud Sod txt. That is to say: Aeyortes pro xai pyyeldap, OF 
pro xat nyyetAay Aeyovres which latter the sah uss have in full. 
Now how about doh being so youthful, if BL be basic here 
as Hort indicates in his text without marginal alternative, 
followed by Soden? In Dr. Souter’s latest book (‘ Text 
and Canon’ p. 66) he does me the honour to keep silence 
completely (is this fair criticism?) as to my recent volume on 
the date of the Bohairic, while reproducing faithfully Guidi’s 
Burkitt's and Leipoldi’s obiter dicta. He says: ‘In the 
northern part, where was Alexandria, the necessity did not 
arise till late” [purely gratuitous assumption], “and Guidi, 
followed by Burkitt and Leipoldt, thinks that the Bohzairic 
version...was made in the sixth or seventh (or eighth) 


century.” 


. TY wpay exavny (—Tap avtwor) only B with the boh™ 8, 


another commentary on our remarks as to boh. Sod adds 
Sod'™ for omission of wap avroy, but this codex apparently 
does not have exewnv, while Soden quotes his family * (= Cyril’s 
Commentary mss) for +exesyv with B, while having tap 
avrev. This triple conjunction of B Sinat and Alexandria is 
instructive. There is a change of order here aa to the position 
of wap avrev which throws a further light upon B’s course. 


. +52 (post tovro init.) BC*GT™W min alig boh™™™ Orig" 


[W-H] sed Sod txt plene. 
(+a init. = vel wat vel S¢ aeth) 
Observe dohairtc again, not sahidic, supporting B and Origen, 
with & absent which goes with the great mass without copula, 
(+ovv Paris” ¢). 


. See under “ Solecisms.”” Sah supports B for omission of 8e. 
. —Beou (post jovov) BW soli inter gr cum ab yw (sol. inter 


latt) et sah et boh [W-H]. Cf. etiam Orig Did Hus. All this 
seems to come from one error in a M8 where MONOYOYOYZHTEITE 
may have misled, rather than that from MONOYOYZHTEITE 
ey crept in, for all other Versions as well as Greek documents 
have Beov. (N has rapa tou poveyevous feov.) Soden neglects 
to record sah boh for omission. 

amey sine copula NBL 397 a foss = sah et syr cu pesh 
arm Orig W-H [non Sod], against all the rest which add be, 
cat, or ovy, including the sympathetic minuscules. It is not a 
question of the “shorter” text which need occapy us here, 
because in the same verse it is NBD ete. which add ovy after 
averrecov, while it is EFGHMS8VIA which omit. 


B IN 8T, JOHN’S GOSPEL. 319 


John 
vi. 14. a erouncey onpueta (pro o en. anpetov) BOX? (= Sod**) a arm 


syr hier and boh, against sah and the rest. Westcott-Hort 
adopt in their text this very questionable change.t Simply I 
suppose because B had the support of another (Egyptian) 
fragmentary uncial of the sixth century. 

42, ww vuv BCTW Sod** * pon goth} syr hier 

Ath W-H Sod tet. 
Kas TOS syr pesh 
Tas ouv ND rell latt™ sah 4/7 Ath® Chr Cyr, 
but sah 3/7 syr cu sin and Paris’ v“* @ ¢ omit vuy or ovy 
while aeth doubles cas mas ouv ot xa mas auy vuv (as arm 
bo, Fruattuar) . 
ibid. —ovros sec. See under “ Improvement.” 

43. amex pin (sine ovv) BCKLTIM min” e¢ Sod™™” [sed 
habet ovv Paris] a ¢ 7 sah bok syr arm Cyr W-H 
Sod txt. 


46. See under ‘‘ Solecisms.” 
52, +avrov in connection with capxa BT 892 Sod' 349 (1A) 


[but not other cursives] it"! vg sah boh aeth and arm syr with 
Chr Amm Orig [|W-H], but opposed by & and the rest 
including W # goth Orig and Cyr. 
58. 04 matepes (— view) NBCLTW 262 3° Bon Orig W-H 
[Sod] against sah and the rest and all the versions. 


vii, 8. >cov Ta epya Bel v4 GF cont. “ [cou] ta epya” W-H tat, 
10. arya ws ev BT et copt (rell omn add ev vel adr ws ev) 
49. adda o oxdos BDLTW 3828 892 (Sod teste) ef copt W-H 


(retl omm adX' 0 axros) 
34 fin. ov duvacbe erBew +exee  B™ inter gr-lat syr, but with 
both sah and boh (all codices) which add epog (‘to it”). 
This is a very pretty and decisive place, but Tischendorf 
“misses it completely. Horner exhibits it. Soden neglects it. 
An addition like this is very deliberate. Either it is right or 
wrong. Hort condemns it as wrong, for he found no other 
support. I exhibit it as undoubtedly due to coptic influence 
on B, thas for ever destroying B as a reliable “neutral” 

witness elsewhere unless largely supported. 

40. -borz (ante ovtos) BDX (teste SodA® contra Tisch™) d only 

and sah boh syr ew (sin). 

vili. 14. See under “ Order.” 





t Process roversed by the Oxford edition of 1910, to ite credit. The plural is 
relegated to the margin, 

¢ Goth = nu, which then as now in the languages originating from it does not 
strictly mean now, but embraces the meanings of both ovy and yur. 


320 


Jan 
vill. 28. 


51. 


55. 
ix. 11. 


17, 18. See under “ Order.” 


27. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


+ ors (ante orav) _B" et sah xe BOTAN, boh xe equuun. 
Tischendorf fails to add coptic here, I suppose because it is 
the coptic manner (although he sometimes calls attention’ to 
this elsewhere) but he thus misses the further link between 
B andcoptic. Horner, copying from Tischendorf's apparatus, 
refuses here to mention the +ore of B, doubtless for the same 
reason, but I can consider it no accident nor any coincidence, 
but absolutely deliberate from a bilingual graeco-copt under 
the hand of B’s ancestor. Cf. not only vii. 40 above, but 
vii. 34 t+exe. It has no connection with syr here, nor with 
Latin, nor does it appear in any other Greek (see below again 
at ix. 11) to date, including WY 892 Paris’ and Loura4™. 
Soden mentions it without other Greek support. W-H tat 
refuses the-addition. 

rov euov Xoyou =NBCD®LT'XWY 33 213 258 Paris’ Sod'™ 
(enov Aoyov 892) Orig (Cyr) (Chr) sah boh, against the rest, and 
the Latins (including d) and syr. 

adda oda «= BD N(contra morem) XW W-H tzt (Rell add o:da). 
ort (ante vraye) NBLT' Laurat™™ sah boh W-H [Sod 
tt]. Here Horner again fails to introduce this matter into 
bis notes, although Tischendorf has observed it, for it rings 
peculiar in the Greck. W eschews it. It does not appear 
in D. There is no trace in Latin. The minuscules do not 
have it, nor V nor 892 Paris”. What is it but a reflection of 
re RuvK sah and xe s2ace boh? Soden on the strength of 
the additional T' (but this fragment is purely Egyptian) and 
Laura4 ™ introduces ors into his text in square brackets. But 
this place is on all fours with viii. 28 above. If B was wrong 
there, he is not right here simply becanse NL'T' support. 

B adds ov after re alone of Greeks and Latins in the phrase 
qt ovv jadi Bedere axoverv. Most sah and boh have os on 
= waduv, but B could easily misread ow Overt = 7+ ovy 
which one bok ms actually has. <Aeth and georg are the only 
other authorities to go with B. (W-H™ have it.) 


98 init. car edoSopyoay N*BT'W sah” aeth syr hier Cyr, but o 


30. 
$31. 


Se crord. DLN°Y Paris”, croid. ovy a few, and the mass 

and 892 edo:Sopyoay without copula. 

See under ‘‘ Improvement.” 

Once more adAa cav (pro ady cav) BT'W more copt [not D 
here] refused by W-H who followed B™" at iii. 16. 


a 


} Observe Origen alone at x. 18 adda cys (AAAAK ANOK ah doh), 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. Bat 


Jol . 
rt ix. 36. efy (pro amexpily exesvos Kat etrer) BI'W Cf. sah init. 


nNexdc] tantum, and see under ‘‘ Solecisms of B.” 

40 init. neovoay (sine copula) NBLXX"W Sod™ 33 157 213 

249 Paris” sak boh arm Cyr Sod’) SCN e¢ txt (xa neovov 
892 t xa neovaav plur, nx. de D a ff, nx. ov 1 2” a). 

x. 4. otapy (sine copula) NBLIVW Sod I[non fam] 33 157 2” 
Sod®* KN sah boh™ W-H Sod txt against the rest and the 
other versions and laté and boh™ and sah*™™". 

13 init. ~o be pucOaros pevyee NBDL 1 22° 33 397 Sod®™ 
de syr hier sin arm et sah boh aeth Lucif Orient Symm W-H 
Sod txt. There is some difficulty here as to the construction 
without this clause unless we treat the end of verse 12 after 
gevyet as bracketed. Indeed W goes further and (13) elides 
o Se puc@wros devyer and the following words ort prcbwros 
eorty, while fossat writes “mercennarius autem e¢ fugit quia 
mercennarius est,” omitting the rest ef non pertinet ad cum 
de ovibus. Paris begins o 8 proPwros, but, eliding devyes 
ott pucOwros, continues with esr. Perhaps NBDL are 
right. 

. eyevero tore (pro eyevero Se) BLWY 33 Paris’ Lauras ™ 
sah bok" arm (slav sax goth) W-H Sod against all the rest 
(gat aeth and some doh conflate with Sod"), and some cursives 
with @ b omit any copula. If we analyse this situation we 
see in the addition in slav and sax (goth is than which may be 
ée) the reason why BLWY added.¢ 

ibid. yepov (sine copula) NBDGLXIMW 1 [non fam] 33 42 

138 213 2° Paris Sod"? ff only and sah boh aeth against. 

all the rest, and against the other versions (b omits the clause). 

26, adda vpers (pro add’ vpets) NABLWA 157 cf 2° Sodio 
, (sak boh) W-H. 


to 
io2) 


(Cf. Orig x. 18 adda eyo) 

28. > kaye SeSape avrog Sonv aiwviov (pro xcayw Sony atwvov 5:8. 
avrows) NBLMXW 33 157 249 397 [non Paris’ | Sod}! Kx 
(sah boh) syr arm aeth Cyr W-H, but against all the rest 
and D and latt and Orig Eus Bas Chr Thdt. For some 
extraordinary reason Soden (so eclectic is his text) opposes 

NBLMXW etc. here. 
xi. 12; Out of six varying methods, viz., av7w ot pafyrar, avrw ot 
pabnrat avrov, avtw tantum, or padyras tantum, o pabyras 





+ Again the historic imperfect, this time by 82 alone, but all rerpetuating the 
Egyptian preterence. See under Matt., Mark and Luke, “‘ Historic present.” 
+ But see Dr. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, 8rd edition, p. 648, where he 
condemns rore for three reasons without reserve. Tischendorf avoids it, 
XY 


Fg 


xi. 27. 


52. 
xii. 4. 


12, 


13. 


ibid, 
16. 


34 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


avrou of most and textus receptus, BC*X W-H Sod txt choose 
the sixth expression: .- 
ot pabnrat avr with boh, against sak and NDKEWITI b. 

meorevo (pro nemiotevxa) B* ™ with c** t* sak and boh 
(syr aeth and pers). Tisch omita to chronicle any versions. 
Our own A.V. of 1611 (as saz) actually usea the present 
tense, but Hort refuses to chronicle B even in his margin! 
[It is not certain that B* corrected the reading himself. ] 
Bee the other example of this at x. 25 under “Change of 
Tense.” 


. Following this promptly we find tovro (for tavta) by 


NBCLWX 59 ? 218 397 Sod'* et txt., aeth boh™ (against sah). 


1 > eyes ingous avrots ~—-B (sol inter gr) cum sah boh Orig 1/2, 


. et LW Orig 1/2 (deyer o ene, avros) W-H. 

I call attention to this here, because it is absolutely the 
coptic method, not only here where BLW.join Origen to 
perpetuate it. (alone of Greeks) nexe !C Ave, but at xi. 40 
just above mexe IC MAC Neyer enoous avTq where they do not 
do it. The adhesion of W has no kind of weight to compel us 
to adopt the order, for it is simply an Egyptian habit which 
NLW (all thoroughly Egyptian) suffer from in common with 
Origen. Hort receives it as he receives everything Egyptian, 
while calling it by another name, - (Om. avrors 604 a r aur 
vg™ syr sin.) In this same verse BCL in common with coptic 
does something else which goes to show more than & common 
original I think. I refer a the final clause. (See under 
“ Improvement.”) 
adda wa B™ (pro add wa) ut copt 
Aeyer Se (pro Neyer ovv) NBW Paris* bok only and [W-H]. 
Tisch quotes goth, but goth “than” stands for & or ovr, and 
often for ovy as here where the sense demands a half-way 
house. Goth often shows this and explains—as do other 
versions in other places—why certain Mss make changes in 
copulas and otherwise. . 

Here L sah and a few omit the copula; a few Latins have 
kas with syr, but the great majority of authorities ov. * 
+6 (ante oxdos) BL Sod #13 42 and doh [against 
sah] W-H. I placed this under “‘ Solecisms” first as: Tisch 
omits to record the bohairic. Cf. syr sin. 
expavyacay B* sah goth. See under “Change of 

Tense.” 
See under “ Improvement.” 
avTou ot pabyras NB Sod** Paris” soli et W-H cum copt. 
See remarks under “ Coptic and Latin” on this. 
+ovp NBLXW min‘ e¢ 213 Sod? #5 FM et 


Johu 


ibid. 


xiii. 6. 
26. 


28. 


10. 


11. 


17. 


23. 


26/27. 


xvi. 23, 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 323 


tt, We need not emphasise this because only one sahidic us 
joins, but (same verse) : 

Reyes ov (pro au Aeyes) BLXX'I and W Paris” W-H ¢ 
Sod txt is bohairic order (and syr) against the rest and & cv 
Aeyers With the Latins and sah. 

Dever (sine copula) BDL dim r sah boh syr hier Orig W-H 
Barre ro epiov nat dwow avtw BC(Li) 213 Sod tue sen 
boh (sak) arm aeth (Orig) W-H instead of Baxras ro spapsov 
exidacw of ND plur. (W has dwcw evBarpas To Yoptor.) 
Again I have to accuse von Soden's text of conflating and 
inventing Scripture. He has Bayo ro yoptov car encdwow 
avro. As far as I can see none of the mss which have Sayw 
(for Baas) have ersdacw. Yet Soden appropriates Bayo 
but follows it with exdwow instead of dwcw. 

TovTo ovoe; (sine copula) BWW 157 248 485 Paris*’ 
Sod! 1606231 g67; cunt sak" boh®™ pers [W-H] (contra Origen 
et rell omn et 892 vid), 


. See under ‘‘ Homoioteleuton,” and note that sah opposes bok 


which concedes the shorter form with NBC*LQXW 33 157 213 
SoG? 882 q x, 

Tiatevaets (pro wiorevets) B* alone with bok (all 
codices). See under “ Change of Tense.” Tischendorf quite 
neglected the bohairie support and so does Soden, but Horner 
calls attention to it. This is followed by a sahidic reading 
(and both versions must have been familiar to B). 

S:a Ta epya aurou (pro dia ra epya avta) B 229* sah (aeth) 
W-H** (aura 24* 157 244 g r syrr arm bok diatess verss 
Lert; tavra Paris”). 


. THPNTETE BLW[Sod non Lake] 54 73 Soi? 91 2001 wo uate 


(= Lanra4 ) ™® only, with sak boh and arm alone of versions 
and W-H, against rypycate of DW and the rest of Greeks 
and versions. See ‘‘ Change of Mood.” 
vpets (—5e) NBQWY [Sod non Lake] 346 [non fam] a’ 
Paris” Sod a b Lacif Auct™™ and sah" bok" after the 
Coptic manner, so W-H Sod txt, and against all else and 
versions, the rest of the Latins, and Did Cyr and Cyr ex, 
moaopeba (pro torncopev) See under “ Improvement,” and 
note the sahidic rast “for us’’ especially. 
teyo BL 314 soli et W-H (ey evmov vpw X 33 127 Sod*) 
either belonging to verse 26 jin or verse 27 init, See under 
“ Syriac,” but possibly attributable to the first word of 
verse 27 in sahidie = =[Kuv for adenut. 
> Swoet vpty ev Tw ovopare pov (PTO ev Tw OvOL. LOY dwoet vr) 
NBO*LXYA 397 Sod™** 8 sah [contra bok] Orig Cyr 1/2 


W-H Sod tat, Opposed by the mass and by DW Paris” and 
x2 


34 


: 


xvi. 29. 


xvi. 12. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


the other versions with all the Latins (except & following A™) 
and Syriacs. Thesense of the varying order is quite different : 
NB etc. and sah wish to read ‘And whatsoever ye shall ask 
the Father, he will give it to you in my name,” whereas the 
mass and all the versions (except sah) read: “ And whatso- 
ever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to 
you.” Of course Hort (followed by the Oxford edition of 1910) 
bas no option but to follow NB, supported aa they are by 
CLXYA, but is he right and is Soden right? Can we put 
enough confidence in these mss to follow them against all 
the rest and against DW with the syriac and latin hosta in 
combination ? Apply Burkitt’s rule here, then consider all the 
flimsy alterations NB ask us to adopt in St. John, and our 
decision will probably come closer to the truth than that of 
Hort or of the Oxford edition or of Soden. 

+e (ante rappnota) NBCDW Sod" d and only these Greeks 
against the other fifteen uncials and all minuscules and Cyr 
Chr. The only support is from sak, an OvnAppHcid, and 
boh Den o'snappucia which Tisch neglects to mention. 
Probably the ev crept in from the NYN preceding and 
influenced the common base of NBCDW. The only alter- 
native is that they got it from the Coptic. All the Latins but 
@ are against them with palam for the in palam of d. W-H 
and Sod have ev. 

[ew tw ovopati cov] w SeSexas wor BC*LN*W 7 33 64 Paris” 
Cyr" cum sah boh arm syr hier W-H [non Sod] { pro ous &e6. 
pot DW rell omn it vg syr pesh aeth Orig™). Syr sin and N* 
omit or ous Sedwxag poe. 


The idea is to conform to the language of verse 11 where w SeSwxas 
pes of the great majority is doubtless right. We get a variation in 
verse 12, but these harmonising critical authorities will have none of it, 
and repeat w. (N writes = ev tw ov. cov >xas ovs eSwxas por epudaka). 


xvii. 17. 


xvm. 3. 


34. 
xx. 16. 
18. 


See under “Coptic and Latin,” and note +% (ante ddjdea) 

BW Paris” soli cum sah et boh. Tischendorf omits to add 

coptic for this, chronicling B alone for the addition of the 

article. To B we now add W and Paris”, and the Egyptian 

picture is complete, unless we tabulate the Syriac as emphatic 

and add it to the small list. Soden also neglects sah boh. 

Hort does not follow B here as he did not know of the 

support of copt or of W Paris*’. 

«at rwv gap. (—ex) B® cum 314 [W-H] Cf. sah boh syr 
(not mentioned by Tischendorf), 

See under “ Order.” 

paBfouve (pro paBBovx) BN soli cum sah 

See under “ Change of Number.” 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 325 


John 


xxi, 8. adda ws NABC Sod" W-H txt (pro add ws) [non D hoe 
loco]. Cf. copt. 

11. See under “ Improvement.” 

12. ovders (sine copula) BC sakt boh™™* [tagTisoh aoa Wordsw] 

18. See under “ Order.” 


As to the corrector of B. 


As to the corrector of B (B? or B*) observe: 

xii. 15 where B* has Guyarnp (pro Ovyatep) Bt" has inserted 4 = 7 
Ouyarnp = sah and boh, but no Greeks. Von Soden misses 
this connection with the Coptic, as did Tischendorf before 
him, but Horner has observed it. It should be noted. 


Coptic and Latin sympathy. , 


i. 42. (Steph. Tisch, ver 41 W-H Sod). mpwrov (pro wpwros) 
BAMT’XX°I Sod min aliq copt latt syr W-H Sod tat. 
[Non rell, non LW, non 38 vid, non 892, non Paris*™ | 

(43, (Steph. Tisch, ver 42 W-H Sod). twawvov (pro twva) XB*LW 
33. a b f F lr vg®*® Gohunna vgg™) sah bok (aeth) Nonn 
Evang Heby (teste Evan 566 marg) W-H Sod tzt, but against 
all else and syrr Epiph Chr Cyr Serap. (twavva Sod’) 
(Om dim). 

ii, 1. ry rpity nuepa (pro 77 nuepa Ty TpLTN) BU Sod fam 13 
197 min’ Epiph'** W-H™ = beqrand sah, against bok and 
the great mass of Greeks. 

iii. 18. 0 py meotevar sec loco (—Se) NBW ff 1 boh** Clem Orig 
Tert Cypr’* W-H [non Sod} but against the mass. This is 
coptic manner, but most bof and all sah have &¢. The three 
doh Mss involved are FKN. In Tisch’s notes neither bok nor 
Clem appear for the omission nor in von Soden. 

iv. 50. emsorevoer sine copula NBDW [non minn exc. Sod **7] 
cdl gat vg sah boh™ Cyr W-If Sod txt {against xa: ema. 
the rest and syrr bok” aeth and Paris", and emtar. de by LT? 
213 314 s** 892). 

v.12. npotycay (sine copula) NBD p** Sod ade flr foss sah 
boh* and syr eu arm W-H [Sod]. (Om vers WPA 6 syr sin.) 











+ Add this to Tischendorf's apparatus. It is coptic (and coptic style) against all 
others, but ae the others vary among themselves as to what copula to use we need nob 
accuse B of dropping anything. 


326 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
Soa 


v.29. of ta davda-(pro ot de Ta pavde OF Kal oF 7a gavra) by B 

alone of Greeks with sah [negl. Sod] and a ¢ ff Tert Aug 

W-H txt. (See under “Improvement.”) T' extant here and 

otherwise sympathetic has o: Se 1a favda. ; 

vi. 5. —7ov {ante diterrov) NBDNLA 33 892 Paria”? Sod™! ®¢ 
Evat 60 Gyr W-H Sod txt (contra rell omn et W) = lat copt. 

7o—-t% BDidefflgr aur vg" W-H [non Sod] (cf. copt). 
What necessity was there for a “‘revision to add tz here? 


: See under “ Change of Number.” 


. eemev (sine copula) BLTW 113 Paris’ Laura‘? Sod’? 
aber foss sah bok, arm syr W-H (non Sod]. 
45, mas (sine copula) NBCDLNSTW min perpauc it” vg sah 
bok arm aeth syr. sin Orig W-H Sod, against the rest and 
syr cu Cyr. 
. 40, See under “ Coptic.” : 
14. >9 paprupia pou adyOns eo BW 157 235 314 Sod 

Evst 60 only of Greeks, with b og™ only of Latins, and sah. 

(against Loh) Epiph Did W-H™ (non txt) [non Sod]. As to 

Origen he is divided and so is Chr, while D® has a special 

form and order peculiar to him. See under “ Order." 

59. —SiehOwv dia pecou avtwy Kat mapyyer ovtws NBD. lati sah 
syr sin W-H and Sod txt. Even T' (extant here) has it. 
Soden’s note to this is a caricature. No one could guess from 
it that no minuseules omit, not even Paris”. - 

ix. 4. npas...pe BDT' (non minn] @ sah (aeth) syr hier W-H 

a Sod txt, against 
CME ve an flé by most, all Latins but d syr and most versions, 
bat qyas...quas  NLW boh arad Cyr and Tisch, 

Ie will be noticed that W now lends its support to NL. See 
Twechendorf’s note on the subject and full evidence in the second part 
of this book under ‘‘ Differences between & and B.” The testimony of 
Origen is not satisfactory enough to draw a conclusion as between NLW 
bok and BDT" sah. : 


Sets 
ix. 12. 6 avOpwros 6 Aeyoueves (pro avOpwros dy.) _ NBT! 1 33 
Laura ™ sah boh W-H Sod txt (avOpwmes o Neyopeves Sod™ 
Paria” al.) et of. laté. 
24. ex Sevtepov post tov avOpworov NBD{LT'W 33 Laura’ 
Sod™! 110 14 [non Paria''] bo dt e ffl g sah boh syr pesh W-H 





¢ Dd substitute avrov and eum for roy avOpwror, aa do only yr tin and arm, while 
pers merges roy avbpwroy os nv ruphoy by expressing “ the blind,” “ caecum,” or “ roy 
tTegler.” 


John 


ix. 26. 


35. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 387 


Sod txt whereas the rest place the expression after epavacer 
ouv (Om. gat). 

—vakw NBD[non T']W 2° Paris” abcde fgilr gat aur 
vg sah boh syr hier (nuit syr sin) Nonn W-H [Sod], against all 
the rest all other versions and Cyr. 

ets Tov viov Tov avOpwrov (pro es T. voy tov Oeov) RBDW 
Paris” d sah and syr sin Tisch™* W-H™ [non Sod] against 
all the rest including LT' (with them above) and Cyr Tert. I 
do not enlarge on this miserable change. I have commented 
upon it in my ‘Genesis of the Versions,’ pp. 399/400. Soden 
violates what principles he has by opposing NBD W here. 





x. 14 fin, nas ywookover peta cpa = =NB(D)LW At vg sah boh aeth 


syr hier goth Eus Cyr“ Nonn W-H [non Sod} (of. Epiph et 
diatess infra) but «as yweoxopat vro Tov epav A rell gr 
on syr pesh arm Chr Cyy™ “* Thdt. Syr sin conflates both 
these readings (not indicated by Sodei). 

(Epiph invertens xa: yap ta ena mpoBata ywwoner pe Kat 

yivwcks ta ena mpoBata. Cf. diatess arab.) 

This is quite a remarkable place. Not a single recorded 
minuscule [not even Paris] agrees with the five uncials 
NBDLW for the active construction, yet ad? the Latins go 
with sah beh for it. And as syr sin amplifies and conflates the 
two, both must be equally old. 

The diatess (not inverting) seems to preserve the singular 
exhibited by Epiph: ‘And I know what is mine, and what 
is mine knoweth me,” continuing as the Greek ina harmonious 
sentence xadws yivwoxe pe 0 TATHP. 

Again Soden’s text opposes NBDLW. How can he reconcile 
this action with his attitude elsewhere when he follows NB 
or BD alone? 


19 init. oyeopa (sine copula) NBLXW 33 157 213 249 Paris” 


26. 


29. 


42, 


xi. 18. 


30. 


Sod™™ it [non d] vg [non vg?™] sah arm W-H Sod txt, contra 
rell et Chr Cyr, et syr sin +" And while he was speaking these 
things.” 
—xadws evmov upp NBKLM*IT* ef W Sed™ min 
aliq [non Paris] ¢ g vg (et sax) gat sah boh arm, W-H Sod tzt, 
against the rest most Old Latins and syr sin. 
See Bargon ‘ Causes of Corruption,’ Burgon/Miller, p. 24/26. 
Kat TOANOL ETLOTEVT aD NBDLX 1 33 157 218 248 249 
Paris®? Sod’ '0 fameN jt yg sah boh (et syr arm aeth) W-H 
{non Sod] against xa emiatevoay moddot Of A and most with 
goth (arab). (aoXot ovy emiatevoav W,) 
Bnéavua (— 79) Only 8B Sod" with Lat and Copt W-H tzt. 
Not even W agrees. 
See under ‘“ Improvement.” 


828 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
fb 
7 + xi, 32. >ov« av pov oaderpos atefavev D™ (sah boh). Cf. ove av pov 
anmcBavev o adcdkgos NBC*LAW Sod 44 “8 393 954 8 W-H 
Sod tzt against ovx av amefavev pov o adeXpos AX gr plur and 
ove av ameBave o aberdos pou 69 [non fam] 397 Sod'™% it og 
arm syr. Yet another variation is: o adeddos pov ove av 
areOaver by i**. Paris®™ omits pov (‘‘oux av arePavev 0 adehpos”” 
simply). It may represent the base, and pou have crept in to 
the varying positions. There is so little serious textual 
variation in this much challenged chapter that every little 
thing is interesting. 
xii. 16. ravra (sine copula) NBLQW3 Sod™ sah b e fF gl gat vg 
syr sin W-H Sod tat. 

This I am sure is real coptic (sahidic) influence here 
because NB alone write in this verse avrov o: zaQnrac. placing 
the possessive first as is the coptic manner, and in sah it is 
very striking, both as to this and as to the absence of copula, 
for sah heads the verse. NECRRAGHTHC: “ His disciples” 
proceeding: “ Imew not these” bringing ravra later, but com- 
pletely abandoning the copula (except one sak ms") and 
giving great prominence to avrov o: wa@nta: which NB follow 
against all others. W omits the copula but does not follow 

- the coptic method here. Do the critics really mean to tell me 
that I am wrong again and that a common underlying Greek 
text is responsible for avrov ot pa@yra: in NB and in sah? 
Why then does W not doit? Observe W with SB elsewhere 
all around this passage. 

If anything be wanting to show B’s real sympathy of eye 
with the sahidic version—(I have shown it previously)—let the 
critics observe the order maintained by B alone two verses 
beyond at xii. 18. 

18. See under “‘ Order.” : 

35. To Gas ev yuv eote NBDKGLMXIT and WY minn*™ it og 

boh Cyr 1/2 Nonn W-H Sod tzt, but 
to pus pef vuwy ects A the rest and sah syr arm aeth Chr 

Cyr 1/2. 
xiii, 11. +ore (ante ovy: martes Ka@apot eate) BCLW 33 213 397 
Sod? 190 4 U0 ANS g be f Fl qr sah boh syr Cyr W-H 
[Sod], but against N and the rest, e and Orig. (Paris” 
repeats add in this place from the previous verse; but syr 


’ 


t In Tischendorf’s apparatus change D to D® (d reads frater meus) and add 8 after 
254, for 8 actually reads meus over pov thus: 


n effer mf morruul frar 
OUK AN MOY - ANE@ANEN - O - AGEL*OC 





Johu 


xiii, 30/31. 


xiv. 5. 


14. 


xv. 26. 


xvi. 16. 


19. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 329 


sin otherwise, for é:a rovro etc: ‘‘ Because of him said he 
this word.”’) 

ote ovv e&nOev NBCDLXW minn non pauc., latt copt Orig, 
W-H Sod txt, but ovv is against syr and the rest of the 
Greeks. 

kupte ove odapev wou vmayes, tas (—Kat)... BCLW sah 
boh™ aeth and arab with a br and syr sin W-H [non Sod]. Ido 
not definitely accuse this of not being basic (although Tertullian 
is against it), yet the changes by the various authorities in 
the form of the sentence following, where & and B are divided 
once more, shows ancient editing at this place, and the 
absence of copula may be due only to Egyptian influence. 
Yet a bv and sy sin are of weight, although d and the rest 
oppose. Arab continues the Egyptian traditions for omission. 
Observe in xiv. 7 soon following, another suppression of «a: 
before the amapr: clause by a B group, this time followed 
by Soden as well as by W-H, against & and the majority, 
and furthermore at :— 


. A second suppression of «ae before mws by NBQW 58 Paris”, 


this time with a bce fg foss vg Iren'™ Hil and boh™ [not 
sah this time nor syr sin] W-H [non Sod] while aeth here 
with pers and Cyr have mws ovv. Observe D and d are still 
absent, as at xiv. 5, and it is fair criticism that instead of 
“ Antioch” revising by adding «ae in both places, D et al. 
preserve the “‘ true text” with it, since the authorities which 
omit in the one and in the other places are not agreed among 
themselves, or rather disagree completely and it is in the 
Egyptian manner to omit. ; 

rout Trotncw (pro eyw woincw) Only BALA’?Y Sod! 33 124 
[non fam] 249 262 397 LauraA! Sod U9 MG fm N Hyst 16 
cg qr gat vg Aug boh sah aeth (+upw) Cyr W-H™ [non 
Sod]. Add sah to Tischendorf’s and Soden’s apparatus for this. 
(M* reads eyw toute). It is opposed by the great mass of 
good authorities and looks very non-neutral. In fact the 
14th verse is entirely omitted by some authorities including 
syr sin and syr hier and most codd of arm, and Chr, and 
6 and vg¥. 

orav sine copula NBA 2P¢ Paris” ¢ 1 m 8 vg? sah'* bok" syr 
hier pers arab sax Did Chr Epiph Novat Hil W-H [non Sod], 
but against all others and Cyr. 

ort eya vrayw mpos Tov Tatepa NBDLW 314 Laura‘ ** 
Sod" a bde fr sah boh” aeth Orig W-H and Sod tzt (against 
all the rest and sy? including sin, and V and Paris”). 

eyve sine copula NBDLW 1 [non fam] 33 348 2P¢ Sod'83 0° 
abder aur boh” sah arm pers georg (Orig) W-H Sod tat. 


330 
* John 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


xvi. 23. -ors BCOD*LNY 42 Sod®™®€ [non WY Paris”) b de f 


25. 


21. 


24. 


§ 9 4 gat vg [contra ac r 8] Orig Ath Cyr™ Quacst, and 
boh (which version Tisch and Soden neglect) W-H Sod tzt, 
against S and the rest. . 

epxeras(—adda) NBC*D*LXYI? and W 1 [non fam] 33 69 
[non fam] 218 Paris” Sod’ ° @ b de g gat vg (hinc sax) sah 
arm syr hier Orig Aug W-H Sod txt, but against the rest 
and Orig Ath Cyr. 


. Tehewoas (pro ereketaoa) NABCLNII et W 1 [non fam] 33 


42 192 246 Paris” w* b ff Hil 1/2 sah bok aeth Cyr 1/2 
W-H Sod txt, against the rest, whose testimony is strong, 
including that of Ign. [rerederwxa Sod'?"* ut lat.] 


. etow (pro cot) See under “ Change of Number.” 
. This is a peculiar and interesting place. 


“ ayiacov avtous ev ty adndea”™ without cov is read by 
N(B)AC*DLM? and W 1 Paris Sed'® (Cyr) and the Latins 
and sah boh W-H {non Sod], but all the other versions have 
cov. The interesting point is that B alone [not ‘sah bok] 
drops ry before adqOeca, reading like the Latins “in veritate.” 
We narrow the matter of the versions here down to Latin 
and Coptic, and since in the same verse B adds % before 
@d7Gea subsequently with W Paris” only of Greeks but 
both sah boht we are clearly on Latin and Coptic ground 
and in connection with both. Observe Soden’s critical prin- 
ciples or eclecticism here. He holds cov in verse 17 while 
rejecting eteXcrwoa above in verse 4 both witnessed to by the 
same group. 
twa Kat autos ev nuw (-&) wow BC*DWadbcder vg® sah 
arm W-H [non Sod} against the mass. The few Fathers who 
quote without év are also found to have it elsewhere, and Clem 
has it, which should be decisive as against D. Syr sin is illegible 
just at this place. Perhaps the vulgate ms E gives us the key. 
It writes ut ipsi in nobis in (unum...) reduplicating the év. 
Possibly ENHMINENWCIN in the uncial writing caused the 
withdrawal of EN (év) after nyu». Both V and Paris” retain 
& with & and the mass. 

This place does not really belong under the present heading. 
I do not know exactly where to put it. It refers to a very 
difficult matter. I will cite the verse in full: 

martep (matnp BAN ; om. et subleg. xas syr sin) ads de8axas poe 
Gedo wa oTrou Eipt eyo KaKELVoL wat peT Epov wa Dewpwaw THY 


t But in view of Coptic methods should be noticed here. 
_ $ And perhaps the emphatic Syriac. 


John 


xviii. 15. 


ibid. 


31. 
ibid. 


xix, 12. 


16. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 331 


Soav hv eunr, iv Sedwxas (al. ebwxas) por ore yyaTNCAas pe 
mpo kataBoAns Koopov. 

Clem, quoting 24/26, does not vary (except as to the tense 
of “ gavest”) and employs obs. So do the other Fathers: 
Eus Chr Cyr Cypr Thdt etc., but NBDW Paris” boh 
[non sah] goth and d (agreeing with D") and syr sin W-H 
and Sod txt substitute 6 for ots. The only key to an 
error in writing would occur if tarnp were absent between 
the two verses, as is the case in syr sin alone, and where 
nyannoas would be followed by ous: HTANHCACOYE, but this 
cause of corruption is very unlikely. Clearly here NBDW d 
boh goth syr sin hold the more difficult (most difficult) reading. 
Hort adopts it, but has nothing in his ‘Notes on Select 
Readings’ about it. The Oxford edition of 1910 places ois 
in the margin and Souter gives the evidence in a footnote. 
Soden boldly adopts 8 (although Sod" reads ov [showing an 
original difficulty, but not 6]) notwithstanding the fact that 
the omission which he neglected in verse 22 just above was 
sustained by a rather stronger family group. 

To what 6 refers is difficult to conjecture, and I would only 
remark as to the relative age of bok and sak that it is bok 
which goes with the accepted minority here for the hard reading 
and not sak. Surely if bok belonged to the vi or vii" 
century this 6 would have been smoothed to obs by then. 
My excuse for inserting this matter here, on the authority 
only of @ and bok of the Latt and Coptt, is that it calls 
attention to this matter of date. 
neorovder S€ tw Incov Lipwv Tetpos was (—6) addos panrys. 
Thus: dAAos without the article N*tABD™ WY 106 c*T 2°° Bre 
Sod'* 322 [non Paris} with sah boh (KExeA@HTHC) tt vg 
(alius) and Nonnus specifically ‘‘ «az veos addo¢ etatpos,” but 
the article is found in CN® fourteen other uncials Chr and 
Cyr, and rather specifically in syr “et unus ex discipulis aliis.”” 
W-H and Sod suppress the article. 
> yoatos nv (pro nv yootos) BW 4 Paris” Sod?‘ it" boh 

(sah) and syr W-H™. 
methatos (—6) BC* Sod5*? soli vid et W-H. Cf. latt boh. 
—ouv sec. BC 225 250 sah” boh eg vgS® syr pesh sin arm 

W-H. 
o Tethatos ante etyree NBLMXWY fam 13 33 249 Paris’ 
Laura4 1% Sod" 1110 1089 [male 1390] Ke CN Py sah boh Cyr W-H Sod 
tet, against two other varieties of order, while b omits Pilate 
outright. 
mapedraBov ovy tov Incovv tantum sine addit. B(L)X (19) 33 
(42) (61*) 249 a bce ff nr aur boh Cyr W-H Sod tzt. 





332: CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


There are a host of varieties here, chiefly of amplification. Of the 
versions, outside of the Old Latins named, all add something except boh. 
Even sah has “‘ But they when they had taken Jesus, they brought him 
out.” In such cases, when the critics follow B and so few witnesses, I 
wish to call particular attention to the fact that boh agrees and not 
sah. In such passages then bok has not been smoothed and added to 
as they would have us believe. 

Jobo 

xix. 20. > eBpaiots pwopatore EAAQoTE =BLNXY e¢ S* (hiat S* ex 
hom.) 33 74 89 90 284 248 gq r° Paris®? Sod) 1110 1089 330 
KN ¢ ff sah et boh arm aeth georg syr hier Cyr W-H Sod txt 
[contra rell pl.: eBp. er. pop. | 

24. ~n Xeyouca «NB 249 a bce ff 7 georg sah” [non omn] 
Ps-Ath W-H. 

No others omit, not even WY or Paris”, but ¢f. pers probably 
representing syr sin still missing. Pers says ‘‘and the Scripture was 
fulfilled,” whereas syr pesh says ‘‘and the Scripture was fulfilled which 
said” (for the usual wa n ypapy wAnpwOn 7 Aeyouca). The omission by 
NB sah” is against Cyril although made their own by W-H, and Soden 
encloses the words in square brackets. Why then oppose as he does 
the larger group at xvili. 21 above ? 

John 

xx. 6. See under ‘‘ Improvement.” 

xxi. 20. emtorpages (~copula) BACII*W 33 265 w Sod** beegr 
gat vgg™ sah arm pers georg. (Simon turned round and saw 
syr sin). The rest have Se or «at, and Chr ovr. W-H and 
Sod tzt omit the copula. 

21. rovrov +-ovv. See under ‘“‘ Improvement.” 


Traces of Syriac Sympathy. 
John 
iii. 25. B alone adds twv after wadntav, reading ex Tw padntwy tev 
Iwavov. This may be reduplication, but of syr sin and syr 
pesh: ‘of one of the disciples of John.” 

28. It is a little curious that so soon after this B alone with syr 
hier adds eyw after ectov so [W-H], while T° and syr cu sin 
prefix eyw, but the other Greeks all eschew this. 

Again : 
34. —rTo wvevypa = B* *' (bh * ?) might be omitted also in syr sin. 
iv. 11. —n yen §=“B™ cum syr sin et W-H tart (exewn pro 7 yun &). 
. Westcott and Hort here followed B alone. This is now found 
supported by syr sin, while N substitutes exewy. Cf. the cursive 28 


’. (ister Ms to W) and dimma at John xx. 15, exesvos pro o Incous also with 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 333 


syr sin alone. Von Soden does not mention this at all in his notes, 
although I called attention to it specifically in the Appendix, vol. ii., of 
my ‘Genesis of the Versions,’ pp. 100 and 171, and Scholz had duly 
reported 28 for exeos. 

The scientific course would be to follow syr sin in both places. Of 
course Hort did not dream of following Evan. 28 at xx. 15. But this 
situation reveals the insecurity of a text founded on preconceived ideas. 
If syr sin be right in iv. 11 why not at xx.15? The answer is because 
B is the key. Anything which supports B is greedily availed of, as will 
be a few readings of the new ms W. But let syr siz or W oppose B, 
however much other support they may have, and the Hortites tumble 
over themselves to get away from such readings. 

éxeivos is a word however of peculiar importance in St. John, and 
these passages are well worthy of thought. See John ii. 21, iv. 25 for 
its general use, and xvi. 13/14 de spiritu veritatis. 

Dr. Abbott does not go into this matter very fully in his Johannine 
Grammar (but see § 2381, 2, 2731, 2), and as the Concordances do not 
subdivide the subjects, I append a list of the diverse applications of 
exewvos, execvot, and exewn in St. John’s Gospel. The word is used 
specifically : 

Of God at vi. 29 

Of the Father i. 33, v. 19 38, vii. 29, viii. 42 

Of the Son i. 18, ii. 21 

Declaration of the Son of God ix. 37 etme de avtw o lycous xac 
ewpaxas aUTOV Kat o Aahwy META GoU ExELVOS EoTLY. 

Of the announced Christ iii. 28 30 (testimony of the Baptist), 

iv. 25 (testimony of the Samaritan woman). 
Of the Light of Heaven i. 8 (ef. v. 35) 


Of the Holy Spirit xiv. 26, xvi. 813 14 

Of the Word xii. 48 

Of the Scriptures v. 39 

Of the believer xiv. 12 21, xvii. 24. Also vi. 57 (of 


the communicant) 
Of the angels at the tomb xx. 13 
Of the Healer (in the mouth of the paralytic) v.11 6 wocnoas 
HE UYLN EXELVOS pot ELTTEV... 
As well as of Jesus in the mouth of the Jews. vii. 11  o¢ ovy 
Tovdator efyrovy aurov ev 1 €opTn Kat eheyov Tov eoTIY 
exesvos; again ix. 12 mov eorw exervos; again ix. 28 
ou et padntns exervov; and again xix. 21 edeyov ovy te 
miratw o apxtepes tav lovsatwr un ypade o Bacthevs Tov 
TovSarwy add’ ort exeivos ecte Bacireus etpe tov lovdacwv. 
Of the year of Christ’s death (rov evtavtov exevov) xi.. 49, 
xviii. 13 
Also of John Baptist v. 35 (cf. i. 8) 





334 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Of John the writer xix. 35 ; 

Of the beloved apostle Kili. 25, xxi. 7 23 

Of Moses v. 46 47 

Of the disciple known to the High priest xviii. 15 

Of Peter the denier xvill, 17 25 (at xiii. 6 NB Ob 
Orig Cyr omit exetves) 

Of the disciples xi. 13 


Of Mary, sister of Martha —xi. 29 

Of Mary Magdalene xx. 15 16 

Of the scribes and pharisees vii. 45 

Of the blind man ix. 9 11 25 36 

Of the sheep x. 16 

Of the false shepherd x.1 

Of another teacher coming in his own name v.43 


Of Judas xiii. 26 27 30 
Of Satan : viii. 44. 
Of the Jews : x. 6 35 (add xix. 15 by BLXN° 


Laura’! Sod! Cc § ¢ g Cyr W-H Sod tztt) 
It is even found in the pericope de adult. at viii. 10 avaxvpas 
Se 0 Inaovs xatr pndeva Oeacapevos wrnv trys yuvaxos ertev aut 
“Hl yovn mov etow execvot ot Katipyopot gov, ovdeis ae xatexpivey ;" 
Add xx. 15 of him whom Mary supposed to be the gardener 
(testimony of 28 and syr sin), and iv. 11 of the woman of Samaria 
(testimony of §). i 


Traces of Syriac (continued). 

Mee vi. 71. es tav dwSexa (—av) BC*DL 230 Sod? 1 551 7 geth [against 

sah boh] and syrr only W-H [non Sod txt] (Sv pro dv 604). 

vii. 84. tye © See under “‘ Improvement.” 

viii. 39. eote... mote B ff vg (Orig) pro are..\.erotete. W-H tzt 
: [Sod eave . . eroverte av] t (Gf. syr sin). . 
xi. 2. papiap B 33 syr W-H (Copt latin and the rest papta) 
§19. papap again BCDLA syr W-H, here, in another case ‘ zpos 

Map@av kat Maptay”’ instead of Mapiay as 8 and most. 





{ Soden should not include 88 for this. 

t Soden’s notes are so constructed here as to be very obscure. The reading of B motecre 
being relegated to the third series of notes with 183 (my 604) which latter however has 
ay which is missing in B, and hag yre against core. The connection between these 
matters is lost in Soden’s apparatus as often elsewhere. ‘. 

§ Soden quotes “lat” for this accusative but neglects to speak of syr here, or 
above, or below. 





John 


( xi, 20. 


21. 


46. 


( xiti, 22. 


xiv. 5. 
26/27. 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 335 


But here only 33 188 Paris’? Sod and 2°¢? are recorded for 
Mapiap. ) 
The above should be noted as to a kind of indirect Syriac 
influence on B, for at :— 
B (possibly C) and syr sin ALONE omit «vpre of all known Mss 
and versions except Hvst 54, not quoted by Tisch or Horner or 
Soden; and the omission in Sod edition, relegated to his 
bottom notes as if of no importance! Has Soden not read 
Merz on this (p. 273 of the Schlussband) ? 


. B holds papap here but with D and ACKLAII Sod” 33 138 


157 Paris”, while % maintains papiav; the same applies to 
xi. 31. ) 


. paptap, nominative, BC*E*L 33 157 Paris” syr (uapea & rell) 
. paplap ss B 1 [non fam] 33 Paris®’ Sod® * syx (uapea 


N rell) 

See below at xx. 16. 

-mas Ba alone with syr sin. Perhapsan error or deliberate 

harmonising with verse 44. Relegated to Soden’s bottom - 

notes, where he omits syr sin (ef. Merz, p. 335). 

ePrerov sine copula BC 16 245 Sod? e arm pers (Orig) sah'™™ 
et N° W-H. 

I venture to place this here, although the syriacs have a 
copula, since pers and arm are agreed to support BC, and 
possibly the old syriac underlying pers and arm was without 
it, and BC may represent the base here. The more so as in 
verse 25 ovv or Se omitted by BC 138 e Orig only, is also 
wanting in syr sin. Soden quotes ¥ for omission, but. Lake 
does not record it. ) 

See under ‘‘ Coptic and Latin.” 

This is a place of some importance, although involving the 
addition merely of the little personal pronoun eyo. Tischen- 
dorf says: “vpw...Praeterea BL 127 add eyw (sive ad vpw 
sive ad seqq trahitur,” by which he means that we can read 
either at the end of verse 26 wavra a evroy vyiv eyo, OF Tarta 
a etov vy, and place the eyw at the head of verse 27: ‘eyo 
eypnuny adenut vay.” 

As a matter of fact Evan 127, correctly reported by Birch, 
is misreported by Scholz and Tischendorf, for 127 reads in 
verse 26 mavta a eyo ermov vu as X 33 Sod and not wavta 
@ evrov uu eyo as BL 314 (= Sod“), so that while 127 
definitely places eyo in verse 26, BL are indeterminate as to 
adding it at end of verse 26 or at beginning of verse 27. 
No other Greeks or Latins add in either place! Hort however 
crams it in after vy verse 26 fin [R.V. does not, again 
opposing Hort]. Neither of the coptic versions has eyo iu 


336 


Joba 


‘xix. 10. 


11. 


t xx. 16. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


either verse, but the first word in sahidic of verse 27 is 
<tkw (= agent) which might mislead the eye. In aeth 
however ey is present in the same position asin BL. The 
situation in syriac is as follows: 

Syrr> says 26/27 mavta a evrov eyo vyuv  ecpnyny adinpe 
eyo vy. Syr'* (lesson 150) has eyw in’ verse 27 but not in 
verse 26. Syr" has eyw verse 26 fin without vyuv (as Cyr only 
butabce f lmr aur omit vu), and syr" apparently has 
vpv without eyw (separately) but eyo separately verse 27 after 
adinus (Lewis ed. p. 254 note “Dissimilia” line 4, and 
photograph opp. Ist col. line 4). At any rate the eyo of BL 
seems clearly due to the influence of a version. Tischendorf 
says nothing of the Syriac. 

[W® is wanting from xiv. 25 to xvi. 7 and 892 ceases on 
parchment at xiv. 23.] 

Matter of order and quite important. As to Pilate’s speech 
to our Lord. Instead of ovx otdas ote e€ovctav exw oTavpwcat 
oe xat ef. exw arrodveat oe, the order is reversed to: 

amohvcat cé...ctavpwca: ce by NBAE*N Sod®® ¢ and syr 
pesh [hiat sin] only, but with pers (doubtless representing 
the missing syr sin [Tisch forgets pers]) and arab W-H 
[against both coptics]. 

WY all minn. including Paris” give us the usual order 

which Soden follows. 
In this connection observe the order Sedopevoy cot here of 
RBD™LY and W Sod" with syr and id! Cypr Iren™ 
Orig™ 1/2 W-H Sod txt, against co: Sedopevov of most and 
Cyr. The order in the previous clause xa7 eov ovdessav of 
NBD’KLXWY 1 33 124 [non fam} 138° 157 2° Paris” 
Laura4'™ W-H Sod tzt is also Latin order. Observe also 
the o wapadous in this verse of NBEAA Sod® '% mint"4 e¢ 
W-H [non Sod txt] (for o wapadidous) = tt vg syr: qui tradidit.’ 
papian (pro papa) B with NLNOM and W 1 33 71™** 
w Sod11233 sah boh syr Greg Nyss Sev (Nonn) Tisch** 
W-H™ [non Sod]. 

(See above. at xi. 2, 19, 28, 32, xii. 3). 

This is quite noteworthy. It occurs in our Lord’s single- 
worded address to the woman—(and is the correct lingual 
antithesis as it were to the answer “ paSfouv!" introduced 
in NB and the majority by e@pacere but not by all) ;—whereas 


+ Paris” breaks off at xx. 15, the last leaves having apparently perished, as have 
the last leaves of the Apoc. in some mss, and as those or that of St. Mark where that 
Gospel came last. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 387 
ae sah boh do not use papa but papa earlier in the chapter, 
as do the rest. N however has vapiap throughout. 

xx. 18. papay again BNL 1 33 2" (Sod teste] sah [non boh] syr 
Nonn 

23. tevos bis pro tev bis B (sol inter gr) ae f vr syr Cypr 
Orig Eus. 


Form.” 
Joln 
1,12. edaBav B [non W-H] 
v. 39. epavvate NBN Sod®® (pro epevvate) H 
lei 52. epavyncov = NB*T [non N] (pro epevvnaov) ale 

The word occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. But at 
1 Pet. i. 10 e€ypavyycav by NAB* while in the very next 
verse 11 epavywyrtes follows by NB* but not by A. 

At 1 Cor. ii. 10 epavva by NAB* and C, but at Rom. viii. 27 
only % has epavywy against B and the rest epevror. Finally 
at Apoc. ii. 23 epavvwy is found in AC (hiat B) but epevrwy 
here by % and the rest. 

vi. 22. mepa (pro mepav) Be Cf Liddell and Scott [non W-H] 

Soden does not care to record this in his foot-notes, co B 
remains alone. But it is an indubitable “ improvement.” 

42. ovxe outros (pro ovyx ovtos) BT et W-H 
43. peta adAndwv (pro pet’ add.) B 157 soli [non W-H] 

Soden did not recollate St. John in 157 so does not record 
it; but he adds Sod Sod (presumably ¢ 371 = Evan 4 at 
Paris) and V although not reported by Lake. n 

viii. 12. poe (pro enor) BT Orig (Until BT were carefully collated 
Orig was always cited alone for this. No others seem to join, 
nor 892 nor Paris’ more recently collated). W-H place po: 
in text and do not consider eo: at all. Soden retains ewor and 
has no new evidence for pot. 

$55. xav (pro xa cav) NBDW Sod*' soli et W-H (ef. viii. 14 ubs 
xav habent mss™ e¢ sah boh, sed Orig c** wat, of. viii. 16 
xav & solus) 
57. eopaxes B* et W Sod™ (pro ewpaxas) [non W-H} 
x. 24. exverevoav B c 
xi. 24. ev ty avaotyce §=B (proev tn avacrace) [negl. Sod] 
28. eemaga( pro emovca secund.) BC 





¢ By using cuy for «at ea» at viii. 16 8 (alone) shows that this is a ‘ preference.” 
The others do not have it there, Are they rizht at viii. 55? Observe that Clem" uses 


xav elsewhere. 
Z 


338 CODZX B AND ILS ALLIES. 


Actually in W-H text because C supports. No marginal alternative. 
The Oxford text of 1910 restores exrovea. I-presume e:maca is a “form” 
and not a change of tense, but unless B intended a subtle variation 
between the first and second e:rovca in the verse; it is difficult to see 
why he writes thus. Compare the versions. Latin and sah make the 
jist eewovca = past participle, and the second a present participle. 
(eeeov sec. loco by the critical codex 213 (= Sod'™) so often in the B 
group elsewhere.) Boh, according to Horner, conveys a past participle 
in the second place. 

In order to avoid burdening the apparatus in Part II. with a lot 
of minor differences in form or spelling,t I have not chronicled 4 
host of places where N or B write ezav for ewov.t I wish I had 
done so however, as this case arises which might seem at first sight 
to require delicate treatment. But it will be seen, as neither N nor B 
are constant in the use of ewav, that it is merely a matter of 
occasional preference with either of them (indeed D writes edeyor and 
eXeyav in the same: verse, John ix. 16) and that emaca secund. in 
xi. 28 is not to be regarded seriously. Some cursive mss place a stop 
after auvrns: and. before Aa@pa erovea, but I do not think B was 
finessing here. Hort (‘Notes on Orthography,’ vol. ii., p. 164, col. ii. 
top) says: ‘‘ The participles elas, elvaca are rare: the forms in -avtos, 
-avtes, -avta have no sufficient authority anywhere.” It is regrettable 
that he did not refer to this place at John xi. 28 where e/rotea is first 
used and then e’zraca, by himself and BC only. He admits that e:ravros 
and cases other than the nominative ate not recognisable in the N. T. 
Then why admit eaca in xi, 28? Why not have used evmas at ix. 6 
where ‘the discourse had preceded the act of healing? Cf. some Mss in | 
note below at xi. 38. 
Jono 


xi. 37. edb BD [non W-H] 
§ 38. evBpetpwpevos B*D (Cf. xv. 18 peyeronxev BIX) 
sii. 15. Zecwr (pro Zewv) B*A [non W-H] 
82. av (pro eav) B 13 [non fam] W-H. Here 157 
a Sod'*” Orig Ath Bas Chr Caes have orav. 
(xiv. 13. aurnre pro artnonte BQ only and W-H™, It may be 


ellipsis or ‘‘ Change of Tense.’ See thereunder and also as 
to the same form at xv.-16 by BLY. There Sod does not 
even record a:ryre although he did at xiv. 18. Sod alone 
improvises a:tnonaGe at xiv. 13. ) 





{ Thus sometimes B spells sapyoia with one p, sometimes it is ¥ who does this. 
¢ Thus taking for example John ix. we find ix. 22 26 emay by ¥ alone, ix. 28 40 
one ND, ix. 20 exay NBL [not D], ix. 12 28 24 84 eway NBD.. 
§ euBpipovpevos NAU al. aliq; euBpipoperos plur; sed wBpipor W;. aaapau: 
oapevos C*K 218 Sod Andre; (euSpipworapevos t, euSpipaaperos K), 








BIN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 33° 


John 
(xiv. 19. &ycere pro SyoecPe BLX 213 only, but adopted by Tisch on 


xvi. 


xvii. 


(8. 


24. 


32. 
6. 


. 0 av Oednte B 209 


the ground that at v. 25, vi. 51.57 58 fyoee and Sqcovew are 
found and not S&ycera: and {ycovra, but, as he points out, 
tnoera: is found, without variation, at xi. 25. I place the 
matter here as it hardly seems right to put it under 
changes in verbal voices; yet a delicate shade of meaning 
seems to underlie one or other of these forms in the 
particular connection involved, and which one the writer of 
the Gospel used we shall never know. W-H follow BLX 
with fncere. Soden adds 213 (Sod'*) but does not follow it, 
yet 213 is a regular adherent to and confirmer of the B 
transmission. ) 


. (pevn pro pewn NBL 33*(Sod] 213 Paris’ W-H Sod tzt. 


“Form” or change of tense. But Origen expen and Eus 
Cyr pea ut vid. ) 


. (pevnte pro pewnre NABL Sod*** Paris’ W-H Sod txt. 


The same applies here. Above a writes maneat but manseritis 
here, while d above has manserit (with most) but maneatis 
here. ) 


. ovde ev (pro ovdev) B. Gf. CW Sod" ad xxi. 3 [non B] 
. ovde ets (pro ovders) B 
. pevn (pro pewn) N*ABD Paris” Sod'** W-H Sod txt. Yet 


another Greek combination for this. d here has maneat but 
not @ nor the rest. ) 


a , Xt 
weatay Gwen & Rell o eav Oernte et W-H & Sod* 


yevnaOe pro yerncecOe BDLMXA min pauc Amphil Chr 
W-H [non Sod). Ellipsis or intentional change?  yiveoOe 
Paris*’. ) 


. eryooay (pro exor) NBN*LIP I[non fam] 19 mg 33 j* 


(negl Tisch Sod) Sod [non V Paris] Origed4 nen ublaue Qypter 
W-H Sod txt (exav D*). 

etyooay (pro etxov) NBL* (Aiat NIP? I[non fam] 19 mg 
33 Sod™* 2" W-H Sod trt against the rest and against Cyr 
here (eryav D*). 

Kape (pro kat ejte) NBC*LNY Ifnon fam exe. Sod} 
138 Sod*® Cyr W-H Sod tzt against the rest and Const Did. 
xapot (pro Kat epot) .BY Sod® Ifnon fam] 338 188 W-H 
[non Sod} against N the rest and Orig Hus Did Chr Cyr. 


ibid fin. rernpyxav (pro rernpneact) BDLW Sod*? sols vid et 


W-H [non Sod]. 
We have had imperfects (eXeyav) and sorists (e:av) 
frequently. This is the first instance to be noticed of the 
perfect in this form. NN 33 substitute erypycay. To 
the testimony of BDLW however we should add e ff 
z 2 











340 


Joho 


ixviit, 


xix, 


Jobn 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


which read ternpyxa (e servabi, ff servavi), This various 


. reading may have come from a copy in which the final v 


of rernpyxa had become lost before the vy following— 
TETHPHKANYN—but observe eyrywxa in the next verse, by a 
few cursives, is shared by most Jatt vett although no N 
follows there in the next word. 


. edwxes (pro SeSwxas) B* See under “ Change of Tense.” 
'. edwxes ( ” ” ) BM ” 
.annpBav NBDW W-H (et emecav NBCDELXW3 1 33 213 


Sod*®"* W-H et Sod). 


. gnaw (pro emev) NBO*LXWY 1[22 Soden. Teste Sanders 


ex errore] 33 213 2P° Paris’? Sod** 14° EC Cyr Chr” W-H 
Sod tzt. 


. ebdocav (pro edsSouv) NBLNX WY 1 22 138 2° 604 (cum LX 


ed:Smcav) Paris®? Sod’ * Cyr W-H Sod txt. 


. o mapasous (pro o wapadidous) Hither ellipsis or & variation 


witnessed to by NBEAA W-H“* [non Sod] Sod? 1s? Ks 
min, but not the ones we expect, nor by WY Paris”, 
but = a vg syr qui tradidit. 


. expavyacay BD"? WV 33 157 249 w' al! Sod" W-H [non 


Sod'**] a, but this is a change of tense as well. See under 
“Change without Improvement.” 


. Taxeov (protaxiov) Bal alig et W-H [non 8] 


(I have neglected the oft recurring differences between N 
and B as to we:Aaros and miAatos, exornxer and sornxet) 


. paBBovvee BN sah Evsthmélinesup. 63 WH (paBBwver D) 
. adecovtat B (aguovra: W-H™ ; adewvrat W-H* Sod cum 


NADOX Sod*® al. Cyr, et agievras plur et Orig. 


. Ketpav BW and Ac, but (see under “ Genitive before 


the Noun") BW pov rnv xetpav, whereas A cX rny yetpav 
pov. (Tas xerpas, — pov Dd.) 


. yetvoperns BA, [non D hoc loco, sed DA ver 5 


apospayeov, non Bl 


. Wreov (pro whetov) NBCDLSXAQ 4 33 122 314 Sod* Chr 


Cyr W-H Sod tat {against the rest and Basil] wsov N al? 
(1 22 2 So@™@ a bee fr aur syr sin omit 7A. rovTwv.) 


Synonyms. 


i, 40 (St. Tisch, ver 39 W-H Sod). oeoGe (pro idsere) BC*LT?W 


X* (Sod 44) YW fam 1 22 33 Paris” (Orig) W-H Sod tzt. 
This appears rather more euphonious as: epyeoe nat ovreabe 
than epyecGe cas cdere. The latter is supported by the mass 
and 8 and by Epiph Cyr Chr. As CLT and WY join B for 


Johu 


iv. 51. 


po 


vi. 


[vil. 49. 


vill. 16. 
» over (pro care) NABDLXWY fam 1 33 157 213 249 397 


xii, 3. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 341 


ovec@e with 1 22 33 Paris” it may well be fundamental as 
regards Egypt, but not necessarily as regards fundamental 
neutrality. [See Abbott for particulars as to Johannine 
diction in this respect. ] 

umnvrqcav (pro arnvrncav) See in St. Matthew's Gospel as 
to this pp. 24/26. 


. Bewporv BDLNX*¥(A) 69 185 397 Paris” Sod' 4° ™ Cyr 


W-H Sod txt for ewpav (Gewpovvtes pro ott ewpwv W, cOewpes 
Laura‘, ewpaxev Sod) involves a discussion of the 
synonyms for seeing and beholding etc. in this Gospel (see 
Abbott, ‘Johannine Synonyms,’ § 1598) and would not be 
profitable enough to discuss at length here, so that it need 
not detain us. I will only remark that in this same chapter 
at verse 19 Gewpoverw occurs, at verse 40 o Gewpawv, and at verse 
62 Bewpnte (or Oewperte), without variation among Mss, so that. 
a change has been wilfully made here in verse 2 by one party 
or the other. Which is the most likely to have altered the: 
word? (At vi. 836 ewpaxare occurs, and at vi. 46 ewpaxev, in 
both places unchanged except for Evan, 28 in the latter place, 
which Ms merely adds emvywwoxe: 9 before eopaxev (sic) pr. 
loco.) 

emapatot (pro emixatapata) NBTW Sod™ I[non fam] 33 2" 
Sod* [non al. vid] Orig Cyr W-H Sod txt. This may be 
ellipsis, or it may indicate a preference, or it may be basic, 
for emtxatapatos ig the expression throughout the LXX from 
Genesis to Jeremiah and therefore may have replaced 
emraparot. | 

adnOwn (pro adnOns) See under ‘“‘ Improvement.” 


2re Paris” Sod! N10 NM Ke NAO Cyy WH Sod txt. It does not 
follow that the rest are wrong with cake. The change may 
have been made by “scholars” for alliterative purposes 
following ¢wvqs avrov axove: in the verse. 

emAnoOn (pro ewAnpwOn) in the phrase ‘7 Se o1xta ewry. ex 
THs og"Ns Tov pupov,” This reading is found in B only, and is 
put aside by Hort and R.V.as not worthy of notice. The 
viciousness of their ‘ note ’ system is shown here, for neither 
Hort nor Souter give the reading in their notes, and the 
ordinary minor student, who is compelled to use these tomes, 
thinks of course that B agrees with the text ewAnpwOn as 
printed. But B deliberately used a word which is practically 
non Johannine (Soden does not add one single new witness 
for ewAno@m), for the mAnoavtes of many at John xix. 29 
[the only place in which a form of 2A70w or mepwAnpe is found 
in the fourth Gospel] does not find any room in NBLX who 








- 842 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


use @ different sentence (c7oyyov ovy peatov ofous pro ot be 
mAncavtes aomoyyov ofovs xa) whereas wAnpow is fully 
oy sled Johannine, occurring at: 
ili. 29. aut ovy 7 xapa 7 Eun TeTANPwTat 
vii. 8. ort 0 Enos Kacpos (vel o Katp. o Euos) ouTa TETANPwTAL 
xii. 38, wa o royos Haacou rou rpodp. wANpwOn 
xiti. 18. add wa 7 ypadyn TANPOOy 
xv. 25. add wa wANPwWAN oO rAoYos ; 
Xvi. 6, @AX ots TavTa Aehadynxa vy, N hYTTN TETANPOKEDY VuwY THD 
xapbiav 
94. wan yapa vuwv F wmemANpwpevy (Cf. 1 Jo. i. 4, 11 Jo. 12) 
-xvii. 12. wa 7 ypady TAN pwOy . 
: 13. wa exwow tThv Xapav THY Eun TEeTANPw LEVY EV EavTaLS 
‘xviii. 9. wa wAnpwOn o RAoyos ov Ermer 
32. wa o Noyes Tou Ioqov wANPwO 
id aa wa ypagy Thy podn 
besides +Anpwua in John i. 16 (a word not used by St. Luke, 
who on the other hand uses forms of 7A76w freely). 
: - Further, wAnpow is found in St. John’s epistles : 
1 John i. 4. wa y Xapa vpov } TeTANpPOLEYTA (Cf. Jo. xvi. 24) 
John ver. 12. eva 7 xapa vnav weTANpwpern | (N)B vg.(Rell 3 wemdmp.) 
in the same ‘phrase as in the Gospel at xvi. 24. 

Yet, if the critics could rake up from the Libraries a few Greek 
cursives with exAyo6y in John xii. 3, upon their own foundations and 
_rules they would be bound to insert the reading of B. there. Such 
unscientific reasoning cannot affect Scripture harmfully here, since we 
are merely. dealing with a synopym at this place. But the example is, 
or should be, a warning and a danger signal as to B’s methods elsewhere. 
Tt B is “neutral” when he writes Inoous for 4 Incous, even when alone, 
as Hort insists by repeatedly placing the article in square brackets on 
: those occasions, why in the name of common logic is B not right when 
he gives us euch a fine “ neutral" form ag ewAqo0n, equally not found in 
other documents ? : 

I insist, and I think the public will say with reason, instead of 
repeating to usad nauseam what a fine man Hort was, and how much 
study underlay his text, that his followers should offer us some explana- 
tion of why they abandon B occasionally when that ms is affected by a 
_bad “sunstroke,” and not that they should cover up B’s solecisms by a 
veonspiracy and a mantle of silence (which I charge to be unfair). This 
remark applies with even greater force to the next place of this kind to 
-be considered, viz. John xii. 28, where B and Evan 5 alone are guilty of 
something very serious. See under ‘“‘ Hopelessness of considering B 
-neutral.” Both Horé and Souter’s Oxford edition abandon B, but cover 
‘up the matter by another conspiracy of silence. .. 





Jorn 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 343 


xiv. 7. In view of the foregoing, the next case may be referred with 


iii, 25. 
ix. 7. 


x. 18. 


xii. 35. 


xiv, 22. 


some confidence to an internal species of harmonistic effort 
(throwing some light on the other question of euetvey or 
ScerptBev at xi. 54, See under ‘“Indeterminate.”) I refer to 
the substitution of : 

av nSerte by BCQYV I[non fam] 33 Ps-Ath Bas Cyr W-H'* 
[nil in mg] Sod™ [non txt], or av ednre Li 2?*, or ednte av X, 
or néecte av 22 213 314 Sod'*, for eyvwxeste av, which as 
Tischendorf carefully explains may be a reflection of John 
viii. 19. NDW Paris” substitute yvaceoPe which Tischendorf 
receives into his text. av Sete seems very likely an im- 
portation from viii. 19. 


Homoioteleuton. 


ex Tov padntory Twv Iwavov Br! (but see under Syriac) 
anndOev Brerav (—ouv cat evipato Kat nrAOev inter amnrOev et 
Brerov) BM 

Syr sin however differs: '‘ and when he washed his face his 
eyes were opened,” leaving out any question of »A@ev 
which caused trouble in B. 

The arm is rather graphic here: ‘“‘ He went, washed, came 
and saw.” 
tautny evrodny (pro tavtny tHy evtoAnv) B*. This must be 

an error and cannot certainly be referred to any Latin 
influence yet Sod, a thoroughly bilingual codex, alone 
now comes to join B at this place! Note the only Greek 
witness in xix. 26 for avrov post rnv pytepa to join the 
Latins ac nis Sod with 2. 

See beyond under the caption ‘ Historic Present.” It is in 
the same verse that NB alone substitute npev for atpe. I have 
directed attention to the ¢tullit of gat at that place. Is it 
possible that Latin (éulit and hoc mandatum) is responsible for 
both npev and tautyy evrorny (~ rv)? 


Homoioteleuton with Indeterminate Results. 


mepimatertews To has exete. Depending on how carefully the 
original was made and copied must depend the correctness of 
the double variety meprmatete ws or TepiTatecte ews. B favours 
the former. In verse 36 as stands plainly by NABDLWITY 
Did Ath. : 

KEKAITIFECONEN. az has been inserted or dropped here owing 
to the proximity of «e. Sand most have it. BADELX 33 





- 844 : -  GODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


897 LauraA 1% Soc? 1246 8871 KN Cyr latt copt syr arm aeth goth 
drop it as do W-H [nil in mg] but not Soden (I wonder why). 


Homoioteleuton and Homotearcton, 


John 
xiv. 4. We can hardly attribute to homoioteleuaton the shortened 


clause here. It would be charitable to do so, but itis evidently 
to remove an apparent (and not @ real) pleonasm tbat 
NBC*LQXW 33 157 213 (Sod'") boh pers aeth" and only ar 
of the Latins give us «at omov (eyo) vTayw odate tHv 
odov with W-H and Sod, instead of «as omov (eyo) uTayw 
odate, xat tyv odov odate of D and all the other fourteen 
uncials, all the cursives, syriacs (including sin), sah, latt, 
the other versions, and Cyril. Neither VY nor 892 follows 
the NB group here, and Paris” has xa: omov eyo vrayo 
ovx otdate rv odov. (Observe that itis boh which 
supports NB eée., and notsak. Further remove “‘ al. pauc” and 
“al” in Tisch Horner and Scholz after 33 157. It is doubtfal 
whether any other cursives so far collated have the short form. 
Only the famous Sod'** (= 213) appears as a new witness, 
Correct Wetstein also who cites goth for it.) ¢'*, not cited by 
Tisch, has nat ovov vrayw eyo odate (—xat Hv odov odate). 
xviii. 5. Where Db er (hiat d) and Origen omit encous in the sentence: 
Aeyes avtats (Ingous) eyw expe’ ecotnxes Se xat Tovdas, B alone 
with a changes the order thus; Aeyer avrots eyo et IC ICTHKE! 
Placing Inoous after eyo expe and changing the form of the 
address. This ic crept in from the margin into the wrong 
place, or is an error of homoioarcton from ICTHKE! following. 
Hort cut the difficulty by omitting Iqcouvs from his text 
(with D 435 minn' (et Sod 1**] b e r Orig) but indicates it in 
his margin as an alternative reading to place it where B does. 
But 7 (closely related to a) by omitting shows that in a 
“ Jesus” came in, as in B, from the margin. Why should we 
follow B a then and insert it in the wrong place? a@ shows up 
the whole thing by writing ‘‘ Jesus autem stabat et Judas...” 


Compound for Simple Verb. 
John : 2 
iv. 15. For unde epyouac (or epywpat) evOade avtrew of all others and 


. Orig 1/5, 8*B and Orig 4/5 (and these alone) write unde Scepy. 
+ (Suepyouar B, Stepywpas N Orig) evOade avtreuw. 
As to this, Tischendorf at last makes a remark which we eagerly 
avail ourselves of. He says: ‘‘(:: epy- st scriptum fuisset, quis tandem 
Stepy- maluisset ?).” zi : 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 345 


After going through St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the first 
three and a half chapters of St. John, that is the best way he can put it, 
“Tf epyouas or epywpat be original who would have thought of changing 
to Siepy-""! But, on the contrary, in the previous hundreds of pages in 
this volume we have seen NB and Orig constantly improving or trying 
to improve. The answer to Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort (for of 
course Ssepy- is found in the latter’s text, “ Seepxwpar” with &, rather 
than B’s Sepyova:, and no marginal comment) is that B often substitutes 
a simple for a compound verb, so that in these other cases an “ Antioch ” 
revision presupposes a change from simple to compound which “ Antioch” 
would favor. Why then not here retain the compound if original? 
Further, the context shows that €px following A€ in MHAE  (MHAEEPXOMAI) 
could easily give rise to Ssepxyopat. 

The middle-Egyptian fragment (published by Crum-Kenyon in J.T.S. 
vol. I does not have Scepy. (p. 428). 

Dr. Souter in his latest pronunciamento on B (‘Text and Canon,’ 
1913, p. 22) after referring to conflations in B at Luke xii. 47, xix. 37, 
says: ‘But such features are like spots in the sun.” So carried away 
with B—(without real fundamental acquaintance with its pervading lack 
of neutrality, and indebtedness throughout to the ‘‘ Version tradition ”)— 
was Hort, but Souter is absolutely inexcusable to write in this vein. For 
justification of our remark the reader need only read the previous and 
the subsequent pages in this volume. But on p. 103 Souter fairly eclipses 
anything so far said as to the wonderful labours of Westcott and Hort. 

Now Dr. Souter is a capable and very well read man. Whence this 
fascination for an edition without fixed principles, or rather with an 
invented standard, and whose sponsors witbheld (if they knew them) } 
the rules which should govern in identifying readings? It is a strange 
situation. For fear that any student might be independent enough to 
think for himself once in a while, Dr. Souter delivers himself of this 
(p. 117): “In deciding as to which of one or more readings is the correct 
one, the final judgment lies with the trained common sense of the 
scholar. If it be replied that scholars differ, then the answer must be 
that for the untrained man the opinion held by most scholars, or by those 
whose judgment is most highly esteemed by the body of scholars themselves, 
is that which will be most safely followed.” 

This is immediately succeeded by the following : 

“There can be little question that of all texts now in existence that 





+ How about John iv. 46, Dr. Souter? Here B writes pAdep ovv mad ev xava for 
nA. ow mad. ats thy xava. Ie this a sunspot or a sunstroke? [B is followed by NX” 
(= Sod4* tremendously Latin) Sod ™4), 

¢ Hort’s ‘Introduction’ has no adequate foundation for his text in the matter of 
examples. It is throughout “assumption” backed by wordy and pleonastic iteration, 
not by examples. 





346 CODEX B.AND ITS ALLIES. 


which commands the highest degree.of. assent among those best qualified 
to judge is that of Westcott and Hort.” 

Now the first part sounds logical enough, but it certainly is illogical 
to follow it up with the subsequent ‘renewal of idolatrous admira- 
tion for Westcott and Hort, because Dr. Souter himself consented to 
allow his name to appear on the title-page of the Oxford edition, from 
which many: of Hort’s readings are ejected, whether Souter approved or 
ah 

We. eine to Jobin iv. 15 where the Oxford edition is’ satisfied to 
leave Stepywpar of NB Tisch and W-H in the text. The Revision thus 
shares Tischendorf’s and Hort’s ideas that it would be folly to suppose 
that anyone finding epywyas should have revised to Sepyopas. 

Very well. That presupposes that every other Greek Ms (including 
mind you, DLW¥ Sod™ 1 13 22 26 33 127 157 218 604 892 Paris’ all 
extant here, besides hosts of other important witnesses including Soden’s 
sympathetic codices from Sinai and Jerusalem) have been revised FROM A 
COMMON ORIGINAL, which we happen to know is not the case, because 
most of these. Mss have a partial base conforming toN and B. [Soden 
cannot produce.a single new witness agreeing with N or B.] 

It presupposes that every latin. base has been revised (for none read 
the equivalent of Ssepywpar) although in countless places in the neighbour- 
hood some and often many Latins are found with 8 or.B. : 

It presupposes that D has also been tampered with, and W. 

Why this elaborate and terrific difficulty, instead of recognizing that, 
our good old friend, the precursor of NB and contemporary of Origen, 
calmly. made use of his little “improvements” or suffered one of his 
‘lapses " from homoioteleuton. 

The sak. and slav versions have “‘and I should not come owt,” while 
ath, expresses “‘et non veniam huc.iterum.” vg® adds amplias. Other- 
wise nothing lends its countenance to S:epy. which is opposed by Origen*° 
himself, and by Cyr two hundred years later, which is a poor commen- 
tary on the |“ watchfalnese of Alexandrian scholars” (Hort) if Spx- 
had been correct. 

4s. matter of fact, but for StepyecOar in this came chapter (Jo. iv. 4), 
Stepyopat i is. foreign to St. John’s diction, while being exceedingly common 
to that of St. Luke.f A glance at the concordance will show the situation. 

I think therefore that itis not a question of Tischendort’s ‘‘ quis 
tandem sepy- maluisset,” but that Spx. is an error from the MHAE 
preceding. 

De Hort (vol. ii. p. 226) explains his decision thus : 

“ Acépyopat..is here used in its idiomatic sense ‘come all the way,’ 
which expresses the woman's sense of her often repeated toil.” 

Exactly. Thus XB “improved " the record. ; 





+t Twenty times in Acts, ten times in St. Luke's Gospel. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 847 


Hort continues: “ Being commonly used in other senses, the word 
was easily misunderstood and assumed to be inappropriate; and the 
change would be helped by the facility with which one of two similar 
consecutive syllables drops out.” 

Weare face to face here with Dr. Hort’s whole mental attitude in these 
matters and with our own. His studies led him to presuppose innocent 
copying on the part of B (p. 237), and a very pure archetype from which B 
was copying. Our investigations reveal a surprising degree of the contrary 
elements pervading B, of which we are giving examples at full length. 

_ Having established that the B text is fall of “improvements,” we can 
only rank Siepyopat as another in the same class. Dr. Hort sees here 
the foundation text, abandoned by all copies, scribes, and versions, 
because the true sense (which he alone appreciates) was “easily mis- 
understood.” But the copyists and translators of antiquity did not act 
thus, and there is no trace of this left elsewhere, except in the aethtopic 
version (as recorded above) which once more reduces Hort’s mental 
attitude, and that of N and B and their progenitors, to Egyptian soil. 
Hort says Scepy. means ‘‘‘ come all the way,’ which expresses the woman’s 
sense of her often repeated toil.” Exactly thus INTERPRETS aeth alone, 
retaining epywpac but adding iterum! And so INTERPRETS Ephr (against 
syr and diatess) ! 

Jobn 
iv. 16. Immediately following this, we find cov tov avédpa by B 
and seven cursives which is the coptic method (for tov 
avdpa cov) and where Orig 3/6 3/6 is on both sides. 

What happened to N here? And W? What science is there in 
establishing Ssepy. as ‘neutral’? and basic in iv. 15 if in the very 
next verse we cannot tell what is and what is not neutral? Of course 
Hort knew, for he had support for B from a mixed lot of cursives: 69 
{contra fam] 71 74 248 254 Host 32 and 60 [contra Evan 157 its sister], 
(Soden only adds ™ ™1) go he placed the B reading in his text. But he is 
only following a “‘ version tradition,” one ‘‘ version tradition,” and that of 
Egypt, insodoing. Naturally, when you establish an arbitrary “ neutral ” 
text and make it a standard you can be free to act as you wish. This utterly 
unscientific stand (Stepyapat in verse 15) is now found to be adopted by 
the R.V. as exhibited in the Oxford edition of 1910 after thirty years’ and 
more experience since Hort’s text was published. I can only say that 
the “‘ majority of scholars ” cited by Souter may be right, but I prefer to 
remain with the late Dr. Salmon, Canon Cook, Adalbert Merx and others 
in the minority, “Facts are stubborn things,” as Adalbert Merx quotes 
on the first page of his first volume. I will not accept all B’s strange 
readings and aberrations because I am told to do so, Souter's apostle 
Burkitt (see the unstinted praise on p. 129 of Souter’s ‘Text and 
Canon’) himself is on my side with Turner and others against this 
idolatry and even von Soden abandons NB and Orig 3/4 here. 





348 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


VERB FoRM CHANGES. 


Change of Voice. 


John 


v.25. axovoovow B 22 138 357? (257 Tisch) Sod! Chr™ Cyr 
Hipp (Soden) et W-H txt. 

axovawaow NLT! I[non fam] 33 69[non fam] 157 185 213 
, 314 2P¢ et WY Paris” Sod its? & et Sod txt. 


(audiunt ce f vg™) 
but axovgovra: DATAATI unc® minn nit pl et Hipp™ (Lagarde) 
ibid. fnoovarw NBDL et T'W I[non fant} 22 33 357 2Pe 2" 


t Laura 4™ [Soden non Lake] Paris” [non 346 teste Ferrar] 
Sod** W-H Sod tzt. 
bat fycovrae ATAATI unc® al” Hipp™ Chr Cyr. 

As to the more recently recovered witnesses, W and Paris” join NB 
in both places, but VY has axovcwow and leaves Scovra: alone, thus 
agreeing with Chr and Cyr, and 892 makes no change from the textus 
receptus; the new witness T', of course wholly ‘Egyptian,’ agrees as 
would be expected with W. 

The suspicious thing here is the position observed in Cyr and Chr, 
which is reversed in D, while the 1 and 13 families are divided. Would 
it not be better to follow Hippolytus rather than strain at the more or 
less imaginary “neutral” text here? Hipp is absent in the following 
but Chr and Cyr are on both sides. 


John 


v. 28. axovaovaw BT'[negl. Sod] 157 Sod™ Chr 1/2 Cyr 

W-H jat. 
axovowow NLNA (Sod) 33 213 397 Paris” e¢ W 

Laura4 1 Sod" ® Sod txt [non 2?°] 

but axoveovras = DATATI une rell minn Chr 1/2 Cyr™ Bas 
Here W again agrees, and T' with B, but not V, and 892 is again 
noticeable by absence from agreement with % or B. Observe that 1 
and 69 do not repeat their change here and Sod has axougovaorrat 
sic. Paris” (with Orig) adds «ac o: axoveavtes Sycovow repeating and 
confirming fycovow of verse 25, and thus is more consistent than V which 
abstains from change here. 

John e 
x. 14. See under “ Coptic and Latin.” 





t Soden does not give LauraAl4 at verse 28 a pele (his '*"), Has he copied 
‘ wrongly from Lake ? 











BIN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. i 849 


John 
“ xiv. 19. fgcete pro Snoecbe See under “ Form.” ) 


xiv. 23. motooueda (pro worncouev) See under “ Improvement” and 
note very specially. 


Change of Mood. 


xiii, 2. apaso: (pro tapadw) NBD [non T'W rell] 
(Cf. xiii. 29 wa te Soe D) 

As to whether o: really represents a change of mood or not in NBD 
here and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the new ms W has eyvor for eyve 
in xvi. 19, so that o: for o may merely be itacismic in NBD. 

But see Matt. xviii. 30 arody & (vuld!” arodam) pro anode [not 
cited by Tisch or Sod], noticed by us in Posteript to Part IT. 

I have neglected all changes of mood following wa. They seem of 


no value in the premises. 
John 


xiv. 15. typncere (pro tnpncate) BLY [Sod non Lake] 5473 Lauraé 
Sod'90 #1 weer 210189 Ke WT [non Sod txt] only and sah bok arm 
future against imperative of the rest and the other versions 
(S 33 Paris® Sod and a few rypyonre). 


Change of Tense. 


iv. 21. mioveve (pro miatevaov) NBC*DLW 1 22* 138 fam 13 [non 
124] 2 LauraA' Sod!" & fale vid Sod = i**) sah Orig 
Ath Cyr W-H™ Sod™ [non] 

vi. 12. We may include under this head ta vepiccevovta by B only 
and 40 63 64 71 al> Sod! "™C¢ (not indulged in by the real 
sympathising cursives] for ta meptacevoavra of all the rest 
and Cyr (mepiacevpata 3 alig.). Neither W-H nor Soden 
follow B here. 

{A change of number occurs in the very next verse.) 
vii. 19. eSoxev BDHII? 240 244 359 hi soli inter omn et W-H™ 
(pro Sedaxev X rell) 
In these connections we must consider St. John’s manner. 
He employs the perfect almost habitually. 
39. oc merrevoavtes (pro ot miotevovTes) BLT (miarevcovtes) W 
Evst 18 syr sin (ef. sah) Chrys®4* and W-H tat [nil in mg], 
but apparently no others. Soden gives no new witnesses. 


viii. 23. eXeyev (pro exter) NBDLNTXW fam 13 [non 124] 
Laura’ ™ [negl Sod] Sod’ 144 *™C it? yg Orig Cyr W-H Sod 
tat. 


This looks like a strong combination, but it is opposed by 
all the sympathising cursives and 1 33 892 Paris” and VW. 
Why? Because eazev is right. The small band above 
changed merely in order to conform to edeyov above in verse 
22. Again a question of “pairs.” Ver 22 edreyov ovv ot 


850 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Jobn 
TovSacor..:, then why not, said they, xa: edeyer autos in 


ver 23, .There would be no reason to change to ecmev if eXeyev 
: were basic. 
viii. 89. See under “ Improvement.” 

The number of cases of change of tense in the Gospels can 
be doubled if we consider the readings of N as well as those of 
B or SB together. 

x. 18. npev (pro atpe) “NB soli cum W-H. Seep. 354. 

- 91. avorkas NBLXX?W Sod” fam 1 fam 13 22** 33 157 213 
249* 2P° Paris’? Sod #1 U1 GMCN Orig Chr W-H Sod tzi, 
against avoryew by the’ great mass inclading D. This avocEas 
must be an “improvement” to fit the remark to chapter ix. 
where the record is so complete of a cure of the blind. I 
cannot conceive of a “revision” under all the circumstances 

- changing avorkas to avoryew. 

25. ov emarevaate (pro ov miarevete) B 462 63 71 157 248 259 
Sod Chr 97 (+ por) (83? 251 ove ematevere) f [non Paris” 
rel]. 

Only the above-mentioned change, against all the rest and 
against the Versions. It is quite clear that it is an “ improve- 
ment” (following «roy vary) and not basic, and even Hort 
abandons B and does ndt record anything in his margin! The 

- amusing thing is that King James’ translators (although the 
previous editions and Tynedale had the present) have “‘and ye 
believep not,” and Hort and the Revision actually set them 
straight here as against B and company, and of course the 
margin of. the Revision is silent, whereas they could have 
mentioned B-and ten other “ ancient Suthers” for the past 
tense. 

The point to observe is that the transition from “ I Troup 
you...to...and ye BELIEVE not” offended B, and Hort by not 
accepting B’s “I TouD you...and ye BELIEVED not” reproves 
B for an- unnecessary nicety. Is not our case abundantly 
proved by this? If B is wrong here, he must be wrong in 

-many of the other places which we have discussed. Fancy 
accepting npev of NB in x. 18 (pide paullo post) and rejecting 

this harmless reading of B min’ in x. 25! 
xi. 27, wiotevw (pro memiotevna) B* 0%" (= Sod’) t™ [negl. Sod] sah 
boh (and syraethetc.). Also A.V. oe Not adopted by Hort. 

See under “ Coptic.” 

29, exewwn ws qxovoer, eyErpeTar TAXY Kal EPYETAL Mpos avTov. 

So Tischendorf (against his own group){t with the textus 

fe ee eee 

+ “ Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where the text of 
Hort is wrong.” C. H. Turner (J. T. S, vol. xi. p, 183). 





Join 


xu. 18. 


49. 


xiii. 19. 


37. 


BIN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 351 


receptus and most, but against Hort's and Soden’s: exeivn de 
ws nkovcey nyepOn taxv Kat npXeTO Tpos avtov with 
NBC(D)LXW 33 213 249 397 Paris? Sod? 44" 3d has 
surrexit and venit, D™ qyepOn nat epxerat, clearly a Latin - 
influence on his Greek]. 

I suggest that this small but important group is perpetrating 
another ‘‘improvement,” objecting to the transition from the 
past tense yxovcev to the graphic historic presents eyepetac 
and epxyera:. So at least thought Tischendorf, no mean judge 
of such matters, and he condemns his beloved N by absolutely 
neglecting its testimony, down to the suppression of the 
connecting de at the head of the verse. f 
expauvyacay (pro expavyatoyv NB°DLQW et expafov unc rell) 

B*"* inter gr cum sah et goth. 

An exception to the rule of ‘‘ pairs” is made here, and instead 
of eXadqoa.. .edwxev, we are treated to ekadyoa...debwxev by 
NBAMX and WY al. pauc. Did Cyr W-H Sod txt, while 
the rest favour edwxev. Now dedwxev may have been intro- 
duced by NB etc. to conform to St. John’s more usual use of 
the perfect, or the other side may have revised to ebwxev (but 
observe that DA, the graeco-latins, have the aorist) for the 
sake of the “pair.’”” We will not insist. For at xiii. 3 
NBKLT'W 138 Paris” Sod* have eSuxev. 

mioteunte (pro miatevante) BC Orig 1/2 et W-H tat [nil in 

mg] 

axodoudew (pro axodov@noac) B and C only. This is a 
most glaring change, yet Hort follows in his text without 
marginal alternative. And this amounts to following B alone, 
because he prints axoAovfew apt, whereas C (the only other 
authority for the present infinitive) has yyy axodovdew. More- 
over the fact of wilful change is shown by C, who alone with 
Evan 96 and Cyr also changes vuv axodovOncaz in verse 36 to 
vuv axodovde. The Oxford edition of 1910 representing the 
Revisers acknowledges that BC and Hort are wrong, for it 
restores axodovOnoa: without marginal comment. Upon what 
principle then do Souter and the critics so earnestly commend 
Hort’s “foundations”? Once more they are shown to be 
imbedded in sand, and to represent the perishing piles of B. 
For the present infinitive is clearly introduced because of the 
propinquity of vuy and apts both in verses 36 and 87. (Some 
few mss, viz. 157 with 47 435 and the Latinisers 56 58 61, 
remove aprt altogether in this verse 37. NXW vary the order 


t See my remarks as to this in Part IT. under ‘ Versions.” 








CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


of the following clause to umep cov tay Wuxny pov Gyow, and 
some would couple apr: with this sentence.) 

ov marevoes (pro ob morevers) B*. This is a very pretty 
place, and will appeal to Coptic scholars, if not to my less 
well-informed critics. I know of no other authority for this 
except the bohatric version (all codices) which very definitely 
has the second person singular of the future tense: cnaot 
an against the transliterated mrmicTeve Af of sah. 


. Could anything be more definite as to the situation as 


352 
Joha 
- xiv. 10. 
13. 
17 
xv. 4. 
6. 
16 
xvi. 22. 
xvii. 7. 
8. 
21, 


. bis in verse See under “ Form 


between B and the bohairic? 

airyre (pro aernante) Biarryta:) Q only, is presumably the 
present conjunctive, unless merely a matter of “ form,” but 
both coptics have definitely the fature. [In verse 14 B reads 
a:rnonre with the rest]. See below at xv. 16. 


. See under “ Improvement.” 


» ) In verse 7 peevnre and pen 
are retained by those who 
ae ae - change in verses 4 and 6. 


. airnre (pro airncnte) BLY (non Paris” non al. vid]. B is 


the only one to have this both here and at xiv. 13 (see above). 
It may be a version influence, but it occurs here in B at the 
end of a line. It can also be referred here to a continuation 
of the tense in the verse of wa upes urayrte...pepyte..- 
pevyn...actyte. This would bear out the general preference 
for “pairs” as explained elsewhere. On the other hand, 
in the actual sentence a:tyre would not square with dw 
following (of B eée.). "We would have the pres. subj. followed 


‘by the aorist subj. in this last clause’ wa ot: ay aityTe Tov 


Tpa ev two ovouatt pov Sw vjuv, whereas we might expect d:d0. 
N, some cursives and Cyr force the future Swces t on us to 
square with a:ryonre. Any way we look at it there has been 
forced tinkering with the passage, for others read S07. As 
none read d:Sa we may look with suspicion on a:tyre of BLY, 
which Hort merely places in his margin. 
apes (pro atpet) BD*T (epee N) sah boh arm aeth W-H™ 
Sod™. Cf. Hil et tollet ¢ d & gat aur Aug vg", auferet a f 
r Cypr (adepe W), aufert ¢ f q; tollit b vg, See under 
‘“‘ Improvement.” 
edaxes B, edwxas A [non fam] 118** a Paris Sod™ 
W-H“* (pro de5axas rell) 

edwxes B, eSwxas ACDII*W minn pauc W-H™ (pro deSmxas 

: longe plur et Cyr). 
moteun (pro wiorevon) N*BC*W Clem Eus W-H [non Sod], 





t And fam 18 have rouro wong ole. 











B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 353 


Joh 
ale but against the rest and Orig Ath Cyr. Probably to conform 


in a measure to mcrevovrwy in verse 20, for morevovtwr 
is the correct reading there. 

xix. 12. expavyacav BD“? min a W-H txt [nil mg}. See under 
“Change without Improvement.” (eAeyov pro exp. eyovtes 
R; of. NW in xix. 15.) 

15. meotevnte (pro meotevonte) N*BY (verse number wrong in 
Lake) Orig W-H [nil mg] (Latins credatis) against all the 
rest (Soden adds no new witnesses although printing in his 
text musteu[a}yre) including W Paris” and Cyr [e and vg* omit 
the verse, but not the Dia#™” nor any other authorities (syr 
sin still missing until xix. 41, but pers has it)]. 

xx. 81, miateunte (pro miotevante) N*B Sod W-H txt [nil mg] 
(Latins credatis) against all the rest including W the new 
fragment T° (Amélineau p. 47) and the Hust. in same publica- 
tion (p. 63) and Cyr again [Origen is absent). ‘Will Soden 
please explain why at xix. 35 he prints morev[a]yre and gives 
H#* & Qp in his upper margin, while here at xx. 31 he 
prints mistevonte (against Hort) and places morevyre H* [°% 
in his second column of notes, although he adds I? 

xxi. 6. txxyvov (pro texuear) NBCDLNANY [non W] 1 
{non fam] 4 15 27? 29? 33 124 [non fam] 262 270 saopw*t 
Laurad 1 Sods 089 10 Cy, W-H Sod txt et valebant cg 8 gat 
foss aur dim vgg™ “4, poterant a b d fr [hiat ff, non ¢ q). 

$25. ywpncev (pro yopnaat) BC* et N* et Sod Orig 
1/4 (1/4 xwpew, bis xwpyoa). The fluctuation of Origen 
probably indicates revision and preference by B, for BC*N® are 
not even joined by W or V nor by a single minuscule except 
Sod" = Sinai (only cS ywpaicev sic). But Hort’s and 
Souter’s editions both adopt ywpycev. Soden does not. 


(Historic Present.) 


As against the frequent change by NB in the other Gospels in favour 
of present or imperfect} over the past tense, there is but little to note in 
St. John’s Gospel. In fact at: 





+ Oi. verse &*, 

+ Obs. 892 but not Nor B at ix. 40 yxovov for nxoveay and obs. N alone at xi. 43 
expavyatey (of the Lord’s command to Lazarus) for expavyacev. Only two vulgates OF 
have clamabit stc, simply an error for clamanit. 

Note also at xi. 8 epiders for Pires by L Hust 29 Sod™” arm, Observe N at xvii. 12 
e@udagooy for epudnta. There is a gross error here in Soden's notes. He adds drtoN 
for epvAagvov. They do not read thus. Both custodivi. He has confused their reading 
of custodiebam for servabam as an interpretation of ernpovy earlier in the verse. Perhaps 
the eye of N was similarly misled! 


Qa 


354 


in 
x. 18. 


40. 


xii. 23. 


25. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


NB and they alone curiously enough sabstitute qpev for apes 
in the clause ovdes arper avrqv am euov (of rq» yuyny verse 17) 
aX eyw Tens avTnv ar epavTov, where NB must be wrong. 
They are opposed by N° and the rest Origen™*r ef Orig 
Euswnaules Pygplaries e¢ gq], and it is scarcely credible, but 
Westcott-Hort, acting on their rule that XB in combination 
cannot be wrong, actually insert npev into their fezt, which 
has overflowed (‘some ancient authorities read”) into the 
margin of the English Revision of 1881. The Greek R.V. 
naturally restores ape: to the text, but could not resist putting 
npev in the margin. The versions and every other Greek 
document are clear for the present tense a:pec. 

Instead of tollit of most Latins I find gat has tullit. Is it 
possible that this ypey crept into NB from a graeco-latin with 
tullit or tulet Pt 

Soden cannot find a single new witness for this absurd 
reading. Observe that it is in this same verse that B (alone 
with Sod) has tavrqv evtodny, “hoc mandatum” or “hoc 
praeceptum” for tavrqy thy evreXnv of all the rest. 
epever (pro epewwev) is found in B [apparently alone of Greeks 
with 21 (Sod***)] with a bce fi of Latins [non d fr 8]. Syr 
sin apparently alone with pers and Chr#4 5/6 omits «as epetvev 
exet, or rather may agree with pers alone, and suppressing 
evewvev transfer «ar exes to the head of the following verse. 
(Syr pesh has nv or fuit for epevev.) W-H** prints eyevev 
alone with B, and now 21. 

Here occurs a real Historic present: avoxpiveras (pro ame- 
xpwvaro of nearly all and azexp:On of the few) by SBLXW 33 
Sod" -and Paris’ W-H [non Sod] and by them alone. All 
clearly representing one influence and one stem. And absolutely 
deliberate and eclectic as will be shown immediately, because 
two verses below at: 

we find avoAAve: substituted for avodecet, but only by NBLW 
33 Sod™* ff. Here X and Paris” abandon the group. They 
have been “ revised ” if you will, it matters not whether they 
have been revised or hold the true base exhibited by all others. 
The reason NBLW 33 adopt azodAvet is apparently because it 
follows so close to deper at the end of the previous verse: cay 
Se arofavy moduy captov hepet .o girov tHy Wuxny avtou 
amoXdves avtny. Thus it not only bears on the previous depes 
but has reference to the harmonising of ¢:Awv with awoAAver, 





t For nper at John v. 9 ¢ g have tulit, and not sustulit; at John xi. 41 for pay all 
Latins (except p r) have tulerunt, and not sustulerunt, 


John 


xiii. 38. 


vi. 13. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 355 


and thus constitutes another affair of ‘“ pairs.” There can be 
no question about it. They do not however change ¢udafe: 
in the next clause, which only shows how imperfect, or rather 
personal, was this Alexandrian revision. I speak with some 
confidence—as I draw towards the close of this essay—for if 
“Antioch” bad been the censor here, besides changing 
aToAdvet to atodecet, Why did they leave ¢épe: alone and not 
change that to a future oice:? 

As a matter of fact Origen and Nonnus exbibit to us the 
attitude of the ancient minds at this place for they do write 
gvdacce for dudager, and ff with its Egyptian affinity writes 
perdit...odit...custodit (b ¢ f 1 custodit). 

Will Soden explain why he rejects arroxpwera: of NBLXW 

83 Paris*’ in verse 23 and adopts avoAdve of NBLW 33 
Sod*"! ff in verse 25? 
Again here, as at xii. 23, we find awoxpiveta: substituted 
for amexpiOn by a somewhat larger group involving NABCLXW 
Sod™ fam 1 fam 18 22 33 188 157 213 254 2" Paris®? Sod? 31 
W-H Sod trt. Tisch says of the minn ‘‘al’*,” but observe 
that only fam 1 fam 13 22 188 157 213 and 254 of the same 
family tendencies swell the chorus of 33 Paris” sung in the 
former place. Syr is Aeyet, but all lat¢ respondit as at xii. 23. 
amoxpivera: seems clearly an ‘‘improvement” by the few. 
Observe their record in the other Gospels as to Historic 
presents. So far in St. John they had successfully resisted 
the temptation to change. If really basic how is it that fam 1 
fam 13 22 188 157 213 and 254 did not follow in xii. 23 as well 
ag in xiii. 38? - 


Change of Number. 


emepiaceveay (controlled by 4) BDE€*W 67 Sod” Evst 60 
(P*) copt lat W-H [non Sod] against the singular eweprooevaen 
by the rest-and Amélineaw’s new Egyptian Evst, see his page 
64, and (amep emeptacevaev Cyr). The plural is more or less 
Egyptian (Coptic) and the Latins use it. When W joins in 
these places with D it is a pretty clear intimation of “ version ” 
tradition and influence. In the next verse we get an intima- 
tion of which version, for, while the Latins hold the singular 
onpetov with & and majority Greeks and versions, B6®X? only, 
with @ arm syr hier and BoH only, have the plural eqpeta.t 


es a SS Eo 


ft There 


is great danger of 3 (Sod* % being quoted here instead of 68), for Soden’s 


symbols read in verse 13 H8101430 and in verse 14 8130, By 80¢ 80 is meant (e8) 
whereas 8 30 is 3. 


2a2 


but x. 12. 


16. 


27. 


xi. 45. 6 
xvii. 7. 


xx. 23, 


viii. 55. 


CODEX 'B AND ITS ALLIES. 


. dov BA minn perpaucad fl q (following turbae) sah boh 


aeth syr W-H Sod tat (Sov LNW) [pro t8ov TATA unc’, ef 
edev ND"X” bc fg 8 vg (following turba) cxemiatev Nonn]. 
This is again rather Egyptian. (:dovtes 67 213, esdws Sod!" 
LauraA %,) 

eotTtv Ta TpoSata NABLXW Sod min™® Const Hus Cyr 
W-H Sod tzt (for esow ta mpoRata) but this is exceptional. 
yevnoovras (pro yevnoerat) BDLXWY I[non fam] 33 213 

2Pe Sod’ d f ug? goth sah boh arm Clem 

(Variant Chr codd inter eoerat et exovrar. Cf. verss). 
axovovew (pro axove) following ra mpofara NBLXW 
Sod fam 18 33 157 213 249 397 Sod" %=N d et latt Hom=? 
Orig 4/6 Bas 1/4 Cyr W-H Sod txt (axovewow Paris*’) but 
against all the rest and D® and Clem Orig 2/6 Eus Bas 8/4 
That. 

As showing that this must have been changed originally 
from axove: we note that X alone follows with amoAnta: for 
aToXwvrat, 

6 (pro &) See under “ Improvement.” 

ecow pro ect (following mavra oca) NBCLNXY et WY 
33 157 213 314 Sod" Paris W-H Sod txt latt copt et d $ 
[contra D® As). Cyril has eorw against the Egyptian group. 
twos bis (pro tev bis) B (sol inter gr) ae f syr Cypr Eus 
Orig Aug Pacian Auct™™ W-H™, 


Change of Case. 


This is quite an important place. ecopas opotos u piv xevorns 
by BADW fam 1 52 138 157 254 2° only of Greeks, and lait: ero 
similis vobts mendax (against Tertullian's genitive ero similis 
VESTRI mendaz), instead of ecouat opotos vpwv yevorys. Soden 
only adds 188 (B é G add) to the Greek witnesses hitherto 
known and does not follow in his text, abandoning Hort’s vv. 
The dative after oyoros is as legitimate in Greek as the 


"genitive, and throughout the N.T. is generally used. There- 


fore in opposing 8 and the mass here (including VY 892 and 
Paris”) B must be seeking for something. What was he’ 
doing? Who is right? ‘Which is the harder reading? Was 
B influenced by the Latin, or did the Latins have vuw 
and not vywy before them? Well vywv being the harder 
reading is I think distinctly to be preferred, and vue to be 
relegated to the large scrap-heap of attempted “‘ improve- 
ments.” St. John himeelf near by (ix. 9) says opotos avrw and 
in 1 John iii. 2 we find ovorot avrw. But if St. John uses the geni- 
tive vo in the fourth Gospel at viii. 55 why not let it stand ? 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 857 
— Our Lord was saying to the Jewish crowd: ‘And ye have not 
known Him, but I know Him, and if I should say that I do 
not know Him, I should be like a liar among you,” or, like a 
liar of your sort, rather than “like to you a liar.” In other 
words the genitive seems to convey that sarcasmt which not 








t Dr. Burkitt (* The Gospel History’) has this to say about the fourth Gospel : 
“ There is an argumentativeness, a tendency to mystification, about the utterances of the 
Johannine Christ which, taken as the report of actual words spoken, t# posstively 
repellent” (p. 227), And again: ‘ For we have not done with the Fourth Gospel when 
we have made up our minds that neither the narrative nor the discourses are to be 
regarded as history, as matters of the past fact’ (p. 229). And again: “ Especially am 
T sure that we shall never do justice to this Gospel, so long as we treat it as a narrative 
of events that were seen and heard of men. Tt is not a competitor of the Synoptic 
Gospels. But, you will say, what becomes of the truth of the Gospel?" (p. 235/6). 
And once more: “ Then again, as I have already observed, the actual words which the 
Evangelist ascribes to our Lord when the Jews ‘persecute’ Him for healing on the 
Sabbath were calculated rather to exasperate than either to appease or instruct them” 
(p. 288), And lastly: ‘ Now, if we look at the form and manner of these words, it ts, I 
am convinced, impossible for one moment to tmagine that they can represent an accurate 
account of any man’s defence of himself after outraging the religious susceptibilities of 
powerful adversaries. It is not in the least the kind of thing which a phonograph would 
have reported " (p, 2838/9). 

But surely the other Gospellists have something of the same kind to say of Christ’s 
manner on certain occasions! And as to deep sarcasm how about Luke xvi. 9 ‘And I 
say unto you Make to yourselves friends (out) of the mammon of unrighteousness, that 
when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations”? No satisfactory 
interpretation of these words has ever been made, save that they convey a biting satire. 

In the above quotations from Dr. Burkitt’s book (chapter on the Fourth Gospel) I 
do not wish to do him any injustice by quotations perforce divorced from their context. 
He has said, rather unnecessarily, of me that I do not know the difference between a 
dilettante and a scholar. However that may be, I think I can detect the difference 
between an unbeliever and a believer! For in all Dr. Burkitt's writings he distinctly 
disavows his belief in our Lord’s saying, recorded in the Fourth Gospel (xvi. 26): “ But 
the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
you all things and bring to your remembrance (lif. remind you of) all the things which 
(rdyra &) I said unto you.” In the face of this Burkitt writes again and again such 
things aa this: “ It was necessary that the disciples should reverence and love their 
Master; far more necessary that they should remember His phrases. But the conditions 
were not specially favourable for accurate reminiscence” (op. cit. p. 145). “TI imagine 
it to be one of the most delicate of the problems which confront the investigator of the 
Gospel History to determine how far the sayings of Jesus reported only in the Gospel 
according to Matthew are, in the narrower sense, historical; how far, that is, they are 
a literal translation into Greek of words which Jesus once spoke... It is not only a 
question whether this or that sentence or illustration comes really from a later time” 
(p. 191/2). “If the picture presented in S. Mark’s Gospel be in all essentials true, it 
will give an essentially reasonable account of the ministry. I do not mean it will contain 
no stories of what are called ‘miracles’ or that we should at once be able without mis- 
giving to accept every incident as having actually occurred in the way related "' (p. 66). 
“T have said that our Evangelists altered freely the earlier sources which they used. 
They changed, added, omitted. This sounds, no doubt, very terrible and dangerous. 
Let us put the statement then in another form, a form quite as legitimate, but less 
shocking, Let us say that the Evangelists were historians and not chroniclers. This 
docs not assert that they were trustworthy or even truthful” (p. 21). 


358 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


unoften underlies our Lord’s addresses to those who were 
baiting him and lying in wait to ‘catch him in a word.” 
The original Aramaic of John viii. 55 we can only surmise, 
but the Syriac is plain, not “ like you a liar,” but “a liar like 
you” “‘mendaz sicut vos.” Malan says: ‘(I am for myself 
a liar like you,” and adds in a note: ‘the construction is 





But for cold, calculated apostasy, note the following: 

“That the Gospel according to Mark contained the story of the Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ is surely no reason for questioning its right to rank as an historical docu- 
ment... There is no doubt that the Church of the Apostles believed in the resurrection 
of their Lord. They may have been mistaken, but ‘there is satisfactory evidence that 
many professing to be original witnesses '—I will not say, with Paley, ‘of the Christian 
toiracles’: that claims too much, but certainly that Jesus had been raised from the 
dead— passed their lives in Jabours...’"" ‘‘ Let us add, what Paley omitted, the abiding 
personal influence of Jesus in the memories of the first disciples, and let us concede that 
like ell other men they may have been mistaken: with these amendments, Paley’s 
famous allegation still stands, Yet no considerations of this kind explain the vitality of 
the Christian religion: we do not know why tt lived and lives, any more than we know 
why we ourselves are alive" (p. 74/75). 

Into this lasb sentence, in my opinion, is compressed a whole world of base denial 
of the great foundation of the Christian religion, and of its founder, whom the writer 
calls “our Lord.” The Christian religion lives because, apart from cold historicity, the 
Spirit of God still moves upon the waters of men’s hearts and convinces (the original 
reads the future éAéyfe:) them “of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment,” as the 
Founder promised when He said it was necessary for Him to go away from them, but 
that He would send the Paraclete to replace Him (John xvi. 7/14). 

Dr. Burkitt, with many others, does not believe in the xi* chapter of St. John 
although it is attested by all documents, and in no uncertain manner, for textual 
differences there (quite unlike those of the pericope de adult.), are exceedingly small in 
number and very moderate in scope. ‘For all its dramatic setting it is, I am 
persuaded, impossible to regard the story of the raising of Lazarus as a narrative 
of historical events” (p. 228). This, because “there is no room” for it (p. 222) 
in St. Mark’s narrative. But upon the same grounds of criticism, both “lower” 
and “higher,” we must excise the long and most detailed ix‘ chapter concerning 
the definite healing of the man born blind about whom there was such a stir. 
And these excisions must logically be followed by the suppression of the xi't chapter to 
the Hebrews concerning Faith. The result will be “shipwreck,” as St. Paul graphically 
foretold in the first chapter (ver 19) of the Ist Epistle to Timothy, following it up in the 
2nd Epistle (oh. iii. 1/5) by his warning as to the character of the “heady” leaders of 
the last times (xporereis, ‘ headlong, rash”), “‘ wrapped in smoke and mist of conceit and 
folly” (rervpepévor), “having a form of godliness, but having denied (so R.V.; Gr. 
Hpynpévos) the power thereof.” 

I said to such an one recently in Germany: “ But, my dear sir, the trouble with 
these people is that if the good God himself came down and told them that the xit® 
chapter of St. John were absolutely true, they would not believe Him.” His answer 
was “' Neither would I'"/ 

Does not this justify St. Paul’s prophetic “ mponercis, rerupepéror..., Exovres 
pépphociw eboeBeias, ry 8é divapew abris Hpynpewor "| 

As regards the lower criticism I would like to add that in the xi chapter of St. 
John there are few textual alterations, far fewer than in the succeeding chapters, and if 
on lower grounds the xit* chapter should have to be ejected, then the whole Gospel 
would have to go. 








Joho 


xvii. 11. 
21. 


94. 
25. 
xviii. 16. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 359 


remarkable.” The German version is very explicit: ‘So 
wiirde ich ein Liigner gleichwie Ihr seid.” Tertullian seems 
here to be a star-witness against the Latinism of B. 

B and the few are therefore accused here with Hort 
of following Latin, or of making a false grammatical 
improvement to the basic text. The Oxford edition of 1910 
(without footnote) changes Hort’s vszev back to vuwy, avoiding 
B’s “sunstroke.”’ I call it a “ sunstroke,” for observe that 
besides the opposition of N and the rest, the new Egyptian 
us T' (so friendly otherwise) also has vzwy against B. 
matnp ayte sic (pro matep aye) BN solt vid 
ov watnp (pro av martep) BDNW against the rest and 
against Clem. (aatep ov Sod’, —razep diatess, illeg. syr sin.) 
mwatnp (pro matep) BAN only here 
matnp dicate sic BAN (8:xazaz) only here 
We now come to rather a peculiar case: 
e&pOev ovv o pabyrns o addos © yYwaTOS TOU apXLEpEews 
BC*L 213 (and no others except X Paris®*™ os nv yvwaortos tov 
apxiepews) instead of ...0s yy yvaotos Tw apxtepe of all others 
and NW. [N exceptionally «&y\dev ovv o pal. exwvos* os nv 
yvepipos Te apxtepe.] The genitive does not seem to 
be a version influence, and yet, if correct, implies a change 
by all other authorities! (Boh can be read either way.) 

Besides occurring here (and in verse 15 just before: qv 
yvwoTos Tw apxtepet, Where the dative is constant in all mss) 
ywvworos does not occur elsewhere in St. John nor in the other 
Gospels, except at Luke ii. 44 (ae rors yvoorors), xxiii. 49 
(wavtes ot yoworor) both times in the plural, but it occurs ten 
times in Acts and everywhere with the dative, except at iv. 16 
where it is used purely as an adjective (yvwotov anpetov yeyove 
&/ avrwv) and at ix. 42 where no case follows (yvworor Se 
eyevero Kad odns ts lommns), so that St. Luke does not use the 
genitive. We have to turn to the single other remaining 
occurrence of the word in the N.T. to find the genitive. 
I refer to St. Paul’s use of the word at Rom. i. 19: 
Sort TO yowotov tov Geov davepov eotw ev autos. Cf. 
Moulton’s Winer, p. 295. 

In the case we are discussing in St. John BCL seem to 
stand absolutely alone with Westcott and Hort (no alternative 
in the margin) and Soden (adding 213 = his’) although Cyril 
definitely opposes them with the mass. Why should Cyril 
tell us what to read, or rather what to omit at Luke xxiii. 34, 
and be denied a hearing here? In the very next verse W-H 
accept Cyril’s testimony when backing the same Mss BCLX 
for the unusual order Aeyet ovy Tw Hetpw 7 mardicnn 1 Oupwpos. 


against Clem. 





360 


John 


txix. 31. 


xx. 18. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


The science in such matters is evidently incomplete, for the 
Revisers disagree with Hort in both places! They agree with 
Cyril for the dative after yuworos and disallow the above order. 
WY yap peyadn } npepa exervy tov caBBarov (pro .. :exewov 
tov caBBarov) B*H 33 69} [non fam sed diserte tov 
oaBBarov exetvn] 188 157 247 317 GP p** i** z** al. alig Sod*™ 
et Elz f g gat vgg (instanter >illa dies vg) pers arab Cyr. 

The versions and 71" favour exetvov, but pers and arab go 
with B* for exeswy and syr pesh (sin still missing) has a force- 
ful repetition ‘‘ Dies enim erat magnus dies Sabbathi illius” 
as rendered by Schaaf and Gwilliam, but Malan prefers to 
render “For it was a great day that day of Sabbath” 
(201 comes last in the sentence). Hort only places exewy 
in his margin, but Cyril proves that B* was the correct 
Alexandrian reading. While pers (in the absence of syr sin) 
reads more simply than syx pesh, for pers = “for that day 
was great” (Malan), ‘et ille dies magnus esset”” (Walt™), 
and I think may represent syr sin. 


Change of Person. 


ott ewpaxa (pro ott ewpaxev) NBNXW Laura4! @ g gat 
aur vg sah boh aeth syr sin (cwpaxapev 9 33 [ef. Luc xxiv. 11], 
but all others and syrr rell Cyr ort ewpaxev). 

ewpaxa with or: is strange and of course the more difticult 
reading. Hort spaces: pa@ytais drt ‘Eipaxa tov xdptov. 
xal raira, but does not intimate a various reading in his 
margin. There is no particular objection to the receiving 
of this rather strange lection. I would only remark that 
whereas in coptic x€ Aina is legitimate, the ov in 
Greek and Latin is rather illegitimate [b cde f§ have quod 
vidit, f g r: quia vidisset, only a g vg: quia vidi] and in 
view of our other coptic sympathies [see under that heading] 
NBXW very likely imbibed the coptic and do not represent 
a “neutral” base at all! Even syr sin is not free from the 
reflex action of the coptic versions. Soden brings forward 
Laura4™ as the only new witness, but does not adopt 
ewpaxa in his text. I notice that Amélineau’s Hust (p. 62) 
has ewpaxayé (with S 33). 


+ In Tischendorf's apparatus B is not properly quoted. Gregory rectifies the matter 
in his Emendanda, B* reads erewwy. B* or B? exetvov. 

t rov caBBarov exervou D**? LN¥ 73 t*" Paris’? Sod’ *, 

§ fis misrepresented by Tisch and Horner for vidi. 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 861 


Change of Possessive Pronoun. 


john . 5 
xii. 28. pov (pro cov) See under ‘“ Hopelessness of considering B 
neutral.”’ 


Genitive Absolute. 


As in St. Luke’s Gospel so in St. John’s there is a marked absence 
of any dative absolute. In fact there is no trace of it if we except xx. 19 
where Ty nvepa exervn Ty pa (TwY) caSfarwv (interposed between two 
genitive absolutes) might be considered as one, with oven understood. 
The genitive absolute itself is quite rare, other expressions replacing 
it on countless occasions. Thus, whereas at xx. 19 we find ovens ov 
ovfcas, TH NMEpa exetvn Th puta (Tar) caBBarwy, Kat TOY Oupwv Kexrercpevev 
...,if we turn to vi. 16 we read ws Se ova eyevero, and at vii. 10 ws de 
aveBncav ot adeddot avtov. Or ii. 23 ws Se nv ev (rots) TepocoAupots ev Tw 
macxa, or iv. 28 adyxev ovy Thy vdpiay autys 7 yuvn, Kat anndOev..., where 
we might expect to find genitive absolutes. The same applies to ix. 11, 
xi. 43, xii. 3 14, xiii. 4, xvii. 1, xviii. 1 18 38, xix. 1 and other places. 
Real genitive absolutes are observed and appear to be limited to the 
following places : 
John 
iv. 9. ovens yuvattos SapaperteSos (or > yur. Lap. ovens) 
51. 98n Se avtou xataBaiwortos 
vi. 23. evyaptornoavtes tov Kuptov 
vii. 14. 98 & ty eoptys pecovans 
viii. 30. tavta avrov NaXovuvTos t 
xii. 87. tocavra Se avrov onpeta TMeTroinKoTos eumpoobey avTwv 
xiii. 2. xae Seemvov yevopevou 
ibid. tov S:aBorov nbn BeBdnKoTOS.. - 
but not in xili, 4 as might be expected. 
Then none until : 
xviii. 22. ravta Se avtou etrovTos 
xx. 1. exorias ett ovens 
19. ovens ovv otas 
ibid. nat tov Oupwv Kexdetopeveay 
agaln : 
xx. 26. Tov Oupwy Kekrercpevov 
xxi. 4, mpasas Se 75n yevoperns 
ll. cat trocovrwy ovtwr t 





ft Instead of as at xi. 48, efc., cai rauta ecrwy. 
t Add vi. 23. For ddAa dOov mronpia, N reads exeMGovrav oy Tay Toten and D 
(of. br syr cu) adAwy mActapecor eXbovrwy [but @ aliae naviculae venerunt]. 








362 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Now the same remarks apply here as those which I made under this 
head in St. Luke. The supposed “Antioch” revision has made no 
- changes in St. John or in St. Luke from genitive to dative absolute. 
Then why should Lucian (or another) be accused of doing so in the 
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark? Instead, does not the plain fact 
of the case stare us in the face that it was ‘‘ Alexandria" which dis- 
approved of certain dative absolutes in Matthew and in Mark and replaced 
them in their revising process by genitive absolutes? The case, it seems 
to me, is proven. 


Genitive before the Noun. 


Referring to iv. 16 (see remarks under ‘‘ Compound verb for simple’) 
we find a number of cases in this Gospel, as at: 


John 
ii. 15. was twv KodAvBiotev efexee To Keppa (ra xeppata BLTWX) 


xvi. 6. 9 Avy TeTANnpoxer Upov THY Kapsiav 
xvii. 6. cov To ovopa 
xviii. 87. pou tns Pwvns ; 
where all mss are practically agreed. And as below where the 
MSS are not in exact agreement: 
xiv. 80. 0 tov Kocpou (rovrov) apywv Most, but: 
0 apxwv Tov Kocpov (tevtov) 1 fam 13 188 2° Paris’ e vg 
Hipp Orig Bas Ath Cyr. 
xv. 10. xadws eyw tas evtodas Tou matpos you Ternpnxa Most and 
. ‘ : Cyr, but: 
Kabws Kaya Tov waTpos (uov) Tas evtodas Ternpyxa §=NBab ff 
g vg Chr Novat. 
xvii. 10. tov tov apytepews Sovdov the usual Greek construction as 
exhibited by most (pontificis servum g g 6 vg), but: 
tov SovAop Tov apxtepews ND3i 242 Sod**8 ag bee f 


ifr 
xix, 20. ors eyyus qv 0 Tomes THs Toews Most, but: 
ott eyyus nv TNS Toews oO ToTOS txt recept and W 1 13 138 
Paris’ al. it! vg copt syr arm. 

24, pov ta twatia «= B*! cum copt (— pov 127) 

34. autou thy TAevpav Nearly all Greeks with copt, but Orig’ 
with 69-346 [non 13-124] 317 348 397 Paris” and the Latins 
and Syriacs have ryv wAevpay avrov, [Kus doubtless read the 
former order, for he writes tov ayvov tov Ocov royyN THY 
wrevpav evuke. | 

35. avrou ect » waptupia =NBW plur Orig” 

. €oTw avtou n waptupia ~=EGKNSUA min™+, but: 
eat 9 paptupia avrov . HY min® late?! Chr Cyr 


John 


xx. 25. 


ibid, 


ii. 17. 
iv. 9. 


against 


al. 


against 


vi. 17. 


against 
and 


49. 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 363 


> pov tov daxtudoy NRDLW 33 Hustaméliveau vp. 62 cont (om. 
pou d) 
>pov thy yeipa «= NL 83 Evstamél against thy xerpa 
>pov Thy xetpav BW | cept | pov rell et Cyr 
> pou tas xetpas =D (om. pou d) (—pov 1 a) 
N.B.—Soden adopts pov tyv xerpa with NL 33 Lust imétinesn 
(BW) copt, but rejects pou tov Saxrudov of NDLW 33 Evstsmelinesn 
copt! (Paris®’ ceases at xx. 15 and is not available here.) 


4. >avtov 9 waptupia eoty §=BCW 


>ectiv avtov 9 waptupia «=D Evst 48 d aur Cyr 

>avtou ect 4 paptupia =. 33.3? 

but N and the rest >ea7w 9 paprupia avtov as latt [ praeter 
d aur]. 


Matters of Order. 


See under ‘‘ Solecisms.” 
aitets > yuvatcos Lapapitides ovens NABC*LNT® e¢ WY 
frag gr-copt Crum-Ken et 33 Cyr. 
aitets ovens yuvateos Sap. the rest and cursives and Paris*’. 
(D d arm omit ovens.) 

This is either an Egyptian improvement, for there would 
be no good reason to set ovens back in any “ Antiochian ” 
revision, or the basic text like that of D d arm lacked this 
ovens, which found its way into the text in differing positions. 
The versions—copé syr lat—express it in the position opposed 
to the Greek of NAB eéc. 
> mot. por yuvae =NBC*L ef WY 71 213 253 259 892 [non 
Paris®”] 6Pe 7P* BP 11° vid Sod’? ™ bl g sah aeth syr hier Orig 
Ath Cyr W-H et Sod txt. (—yuvas F 124'* Sod.) 
yuvae wear. pot D the rest, d and other Latins, boh, syr rell 

et cu sin, arm That. 

Here, the coptics being divided, we do not place it under the 
heading of ‘‘ Coptic.” 
> mpos avrous ednrviet 0 enoous BNY 435 Paris” soli vid., 
ednrvbe (+0 D) eqoous mpos avtovs ND 80 a d aeth syr hier, 
eAnAuber pos avtovs o mncovs most and boh syr (sah enaous 

nrGev Tp. avtous). 

Soden gives one new witness agreeing with BNY 435 
Paris”, viz., Sod", a ms at Patmos, but adopts the ordinary 
reading in his text. Curiously enough W-H refuse the BNY 
reading in both text and margin, their text agreeing with the 
majority of witnesses, and their margin agreeing with ND. 
>epayov ev TH Epniw TO pavya BC(D)TW bede ff gat 
vgg@o™ Bus Chr Aug W-H Sod txt (Orig and aur* ev tn 





364 


Joho 


vii. 12. 


42, 


52. 


viii. 14. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


epniw epayor To wavva) against N the rest coptics and Cyr 
That for epayov ro pavva ev Tn Epnua. : 

[vi. 49/50. rov ovpamov aprov dayortes arreBavov Clem™erdt] 
N reads: cas yoyyuspos vrodkus qv mept avrov, while BLTXW 
a few cursives and W-H read: mat yoyyuopos wepe avrov nv 
modus, bringing odvs last. As far as I can see, both 
Tischendorf and Soden make a composition of these readings 
and print: xas yoyyvopos qv Teps avtov modus which I do not 
think has any Ms authority whatever except that of 33 and 
Chrysostom (codd. p. ¢. 7. 4. ». 6. of Matthaei), the majority 
reading: Kat yoyyvopos modus mept avrov nv, and 127 
exceptionally : «ae yoyyuopos qv ToXus ‘rept avtov, while 1 and 
goth omit mept avrov, and the “ neutral” text probably larks 
inDacde fl aur arm? which omit rodvus altogether! The 
fact is that modus is probably an addition, injected into the 
text in differing positions. Syr and pers place it early with 
the majority, against the small Egyptian coterie of Greek 
Mss (+4 g) followed by Hort. 


. >xXpovoy yuxpov NBLTWX Sod™ fam ise f q aur W-H 


Sod txt (for pixpov xpovov D and the rest and sah boh Cyr) is 
possibly due to basic omission of ypevoy which occurs in syr 
sin. 
>ormou mv Aaved epyerart o Xpiotos BLUTWY 33 LauraA™ 
[non 892 non Paris] ¢ vg syr Cyr W-H Sod tzt. This instead 
of orev nv Aavesd, o Xpicros epxerat, evidently to avoid the two 
nominatives coming together. In sah the verse is practically 
inverted, bringing o Xpioros epxeras (but maintaining this order) 
very early in the sentence. Compare carefully all authorities 
here and a lesson may be learned. Itala is against BLTWY. 
Port ex THs yadtratas mpodyrns BLNTXWVI 892 al. pane. 
Orig Chr Cyr W-H Sod txt, but against NDW and the great 
mass. 
> paptupia pou adnOns este = =BW5 157 235 314 Sod! tamge 
Evst 60 b sah arm Orig 1/3 Epiph Did W-H™ 
while D* has adyOeuwn pou eotw 9 paptupea (d verum est 
testimonium meum) 
and the rest of the Greeks with Orig 2/3 Cyr followed by Sod 
and W-H™*; adnOns ectw 7 paptupta pov as d and the Latins. 
We should refer B’s reading probably to sahidic influence 
[40k is opposed]. The fact that W joins is somewhat 
significant of this and not necessarily of any “neutral” 
form, while as 157 is jomed by the sister Ms Hust 60 it is 
evidently real and basic with them. 314 is Soden°™ a com- 
mentary MS. 


19 fin. waz tov watepa pov >av noere (pro...>ndete av) 


John 


vili. 23. 


ix. 17. 


18. 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. . 365 


BLNTXWY 1 33 218 249 397 892 [non Paris] Laura‘? 
Sod®*1 101286 Hust 49 ¢ x aur Origwicautes, Cyrter [sed alibi 
contra] W-H Sod tzxt, but against N and all the rest (D r™ 
dbe f om. av). This appears to be a distinct effort to 
avoid ending the verse with av. Why should all the rest 
force the hiatus in noerre av? (D omits av.) 

upets €xk TOU KOT"LOU TOUTAU E€CTE, EYM QUK Eft EX TOV 
xocyou rovrov So & and nearly all, but BT (fam 13 Sod!) 
latt Orig 1/3 Cyr*t wish to vary the “ pair” of expressions, 
so they write: ves ex TovTov Tov Koa LOU, Eyw OUK ELLE EK 
Tou Koo pov TovTou. 

The only other authority to make a changet is the notable 

us W with its well known coptic affinity (it has rested for 
1500 years in Egypt), which places the demonstrative before 
«ocpov in BOTH places as does sahidic (and boh mixocasoct..- 
natkocssoc). The lat and vg object also to such an abject 
“pair” and so reverse the process thus: ‘‘de mundo hoc... 
de hoc mundo.” 
>t ou (prosut) NBLXY® [teste Sod, non Lake] soli et boh 
[non sah] Cyr followed by W-H and Soden, against all the rest 
including T'W. (Syr: ov te Aey. ov, Te Aeyers ou Sod). Om. ov 
Sod ff. 
Dott nv tuddos Kat aveBrewer ( pro ort TUPAos nV Kat aveBrevev) 
NBLNT'W Sod 157 Paris” Laura4™ Sod'¢ 14 1986 W777 
and Sod txt (b) r boh (xe macjor zeReEAAE me, whereas 
sah xe neweRdAE Ne). This is more important than it 
seems, for D d [I omit the clause altogether, showing some- 
thing out of the common, which 28 emphasises by substituting 
eyevynOn for nv and eliding «az aveBrevev with b and syr sin 
alone, thus: ‘or: tupdos eyervyy.” b has “qui fuerat 
caecus” without et videbat; and 7 has “quoniam fuerat 
caecus et videbat.”’ e varies the missing «ca aveBreyev by 
writing “et recepit lumen.”§ No Latins apparently use 
eyevvndn, but aeth always prompt to show us that these 
readings of 28 or others are old, conflates with: ‘‘ guia caecus 
NATUS fuisset ef vidisset.” 

Amid these variations possibly D d l are correct with total 
omission. 

The eyervnOn of 28 aeth may of course have crept in from 
verses 1, 2, 19, 32, 34. 


t 69 has ex rovrov rov xocpov secundo loco (teste Scriv) as 88 and lait. 
t —rovrov prim ag Evat 50 and a few. 
§ Cf. the Georgian and Slavonic versions. 











366 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


(Interesting Passage as regards Diatess and Latins.) 


si ix. 21. Concerning what the parents of the blind msn actually said. 
Ordinary Greek: avtos mhixtay exet * avTov epwTnocate * avTos Tept auToU 
(vel cavrov) AaAnoee ANTAA une®l gq & goth slav 
gers syr®> veh digtess Ps-Ath 
" avrov epwrncare * ndueav exer* avros (+ ta V 157 min™) wept 
avrou (vel eavrov) AaAnoes N°BD(erepwrycate 
cum Sod'™*) LXV 1 22 33 157 213 397 Sod 
Paris’ rv [eacept. b (vide infra) lq 8] vg boh aeth 
arm georg.syr* Cyr et Fist distes W_H et Sod izt. 
but N*WT' Sod 25° & sah (syr sin) Chr omit avrov 
epwrnoate, and sah further omits mAc«av exer. 
Syr sin really merges avrov epwrycate ‘avtTos mept avTou 
AaAnoe: by saying: “ from him ye can know.” In reality 
the omission should be considered to be of the final clause 
avros wept avrov AaAnoe: (with 2), which gives us the 
variation: sou yrxiay exes’ aw avtou duvate pabew syr 
sin (2). 

We have the ifala opposing the aadesm: Here it may well be that 
diatess is conformed to syr pesh, for syr sin (hiat syr cu) opposes both 
with a different turn of phrase. But thus it precedes diatess for N* and 
5, that interesting copjunction, omits one of the two clauses whose order 
is sub judice. S*T'W and } omit “ask him.” 

“ He ts of age” therefore stands in all except sah (12 mss!) which 
practically omits both »Asesav exes and avtov epwrycate, saying “...He 
also, he was fit for to speak about himself,” retaining the avros which 
NBDLX 1 83 ié aeth omit, and perhaps covering in intent ndxav exer. 

“ Ask him,” therefore, is the point around which it all turns. The 
inversion of order shows that something was wrong in an old common 
parent. This may account for omission in N*T'W 6 ayr sin sah Chr™, or 
. it may be basic. The fact however that all other Latins have it militates 

against it. On the whole it looks like the old question of an exemplar 
which had been (properly) corrected in the margin, and led to confusion 
in the minds of the copyists. 
There is no trace of trouble left in F'*t iste» which agrees with the it 
‘and N°BDLXY in the order avtov ep. nArxray exer etc., but thus opposes 
diatess arab. 


John 
ix. 24. See under “‘ Coptic ” and “ Latin.” 


31. oSapev ort >0 Geos apaptwAwy < ove axovee BDT'AYW [negl. 
WV Sod] ade goth Cypr Conc® a d ¢ W-H tzt (nil mg) 


Jobn 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 867 


{sah boh Geos ove axovet apaptwrAwy (ayaptwrov saht); 
syv pesh Ocos Gwvnv apaptwhwv ove axover (mut syr sin); of. 
aeth}. This instead of ocdapev ore >apaptwrwv o eos < ove 
axove which XW with the rest as well as 892 Paris” and most 
Latins give us, as also Cyr Orig™ and Hil and Sod“, (Chr is 
on both sides.) The change of order seems to be a clear “ im- 
provement’ by BDAY. The harder order (supported as it is 
by the mass of Latins) is undoubtedly right. The combination 
BDT' is of no weight in such places, given their record other- 
wise, when NW and the mass oppose. (N aeth gat = otdapev 
Se or: >auaptwrwy ove axovet o Beos.) 


x. 16, 17. See under “ Latin.” 
28. » “Coptic.” 
32. » a “Solecisms”’ in the first place, and “ Latin ” in 
the second place. 
42. » oo “Latin and Coptic.” 
xi. 47, >ore ovtos o avOpwmos Twokka roves onpera NABLMWXY 
Sod 189 Paris sah Orig Ath W-H et Sod tzt. 
ort o avOpwros ovros ToAXa Tote: onpera 33 et V [Sod, non Lake] 
ott 0 avOpwros ovtos Tokha onpela ToLet A Sod}90 1054 194 ga71 
OTe OVTOS O avOpwiros TOAXG GTpELA TOLEL Unc" al. pl ete. Chr 
ott 0 avOpwros ovtos anpeta OANA TroteEt Cyr (Sod!) 
ovTos 0 avOpwros ToLavTa onpela Tole Dicdeff 
TOANA Ta onpeta a ovToS o avOp. Totet boh 
ot ovTos 0 avOpwrros Tole TOANA onuea = sah 
xii. 18. 1a route kat umnvtnoer avtw 0 oxdos ott... So write most 


xiii. 





19. 


authorities. (Some omit «at.) But B writes alone 

> bia Toute uTnVTncey avTw Kat oO oxAos, ott... Now observe 
sah: eT&e mat on A maennye er EROA SNTE, xe. 
Sah does not therefore omit «a: as Tischendorf says, but 
places it (“ore”) before o oxydos, as does B, merely displacing 
umqvrnev and giving it after 6 oxdos. Surely a sight of sah 
here infiuenced B so to write, unless he added «az in the 
wrong place, from his margin. But see boh omitting the 
prior «at. Hort does not record B here in his margin. Why 
not? 


. See under “ Solecisms.” 


» 99 “Latin.” 
>wa motevonte (mictevptre BC Orig 3/5 W-H tat [nil mg]) 
orav (eav Paris”) yevnras ore eyo etut NBIL 213 Paris” some 
latins sah Orig 3/5 W-H Sod tzt. 

This instead of wa otav yevntac Tat, ort eye ets of the rest 
and Orig 2/5. It is a very difficult matter to judge who is 





t Some cursives and EUXT have apaprwAov, as Cypr peccatorem. 





368 


John 


_ 


xiv. 


21. 


36. 
16. 


20. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


right, and Origen insists upon being upon both sides as so 
often. I only mention it for this reason and to show how 
impossible it is to reconstruct an “Origen” text seeing that he 
not only gives both orders, but writes ewav [observe Paris” eav] . 
for oray ouce,t and moteuyre thrice against miotevonte twice. 
>upiv rAeyo B*" cum pers (ut solet). See the same order 
at x. 1 and 7, noticed under “ Solecisms,” but not thus 
elsewhere. 

See under “ Latin.” 

wa pel vawy es tov acwva 3 = Band 6 latin only and W-H™®. 
This among three varieties of order, and the exchange of » for 
pevn. Old Latin is for 3, but the Vulgates all for pew; and as 
they drew from a text similar to NB such as Paris” it is 
probable that 3 is an amendment, for Paris” has yevy. The 
differing order between B, &, D, and LQX is suspicious. 
>upets yvoceaOe BUM*QX 33 213 Sod'? 443 0% F ng Cyr 1/6 
W-H [non Sod] against yrwoerGe vpers NDW rell minn omn 
vid et Paris’. .I would point out that as A Sod 249 Sod™™ 
Evst 150°™ b dim em gat vg’ syr pers aeth Chr Cyr 5/6 Victorin 
omit vets altogether, the differing order between the large 
ND group, and the small B group may well have its source 
in an addition to the basic text from the margin. vpers 
appears superfluous here. 


. >Kaptrov wAeova. See under “ Latin” and note specially in 


connection with xiv. 31. 


. >upas pyarynoca See under “ Latin.” 

, > Tov waTpos Tas evTohas (—uov) Ba b ¢ fF gq aur Novat 
Chr? W-H**, 

. Pup Neyer See under “ Latin.” 

. > Swces upsy ev Tw ovop. pov See under “‘ Coptic.” 


. Pott ToAAAaKts surnXOn tmoous peTa Tov pabnTwv exer B™, 


This is rather interesting, because B clearly accuses himself 
of being non-neutral here in placing exes right at the end, as 
an afterthought (incorporated from the margin? Sod", with 
syr pesh™, omits), and this is admitted by Hort, who places 
the B reading in his margin, and has in his text: 

ott ToAANaKis suvnXOn Ingous exes peta TwY padntwv avrou as 
NS and most, but D d i#"" and some versions place exe: before 
(0) Incous. The Latins vary a good deal, and Hort nearly 
always adopts B when there are several varieties of readings - 
or of order. Here he recognises B as absolutely non-neutral 
in its unique order. 





t Just as at xiii. 27 for rore Orig uses era four times, and omits (with NDL) thrice 
elsewhere. 








John 


xviii. 


5. 


16. 


17. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 369 


Soden now adduces Sod’"* for omission of exer, and supports 
B for exe: at the end with Sod*". [exer is placed after ovvyyOn 
by D Paris” @ r (vg) and syr.] 

Note that in the following verse, where X alone omits exec, 

syr sin follows B’s example in verse 2, and in verse 3 alone 
places exe: right at the end of the verse! : 
Another matter of order (unique, by B) promptly supervenes, 
and again xon-neutral, and once more relegated to Hort’s 
margin. It stands exactly on the same plane as the matter 
just noticed under xviii. 2 and is due to addition from the 
margin of B’s parent. Here the ¢extus receptus after ‘‘ twa 
fyrecte” says: avexpiOycav avtw, Incovy tov Nafwparov. Acyet 
avrow o Inoous eyw et. NS retains this, merely suppressing 
the article before Incous, but ACLX and the rest of the 
Greeks confirm the tert. recept. Sah and boh say >Inoovs 
avrots but neither % nor B are following them. D 435 and 
five minuscules plus Sod 1 with b e r [hiat d] gat syr sin 
and Orig [Sod omits Orig] omIt Tyoovs altogether. When B 
comes to the place he acts thus: 

>Reyet avrors eyo expt Inoous incorporating Jesus last, and 
changing the method of the address. No trace of this 
lingers in others except in the Vercelli Codex a, which 
has: Dixit illis : Ego sum. Iesus autem stabat et Judas..., 
thus preserving the order of B and incorporating Jesus in the 
next sentence. Consult the original page of B. We find 
EW EIMi TCelCTHKEl, IC coming before sornxer. The combina- 
tion D [habet d°°] minn' be r syr sin Orig is strong for the 
simple omission of Jesus, which is in fact what Hort adopts. 
Some of his principles here go to the winds in favour of others 
involving the “ shorter text,” but the fact remains that B is 
discredited as a “ neutral’’ by adding in the wrong place. The 
combination D ber (hiat d) syr sin is the true Latin base. 
The Oxford edition of 1910 goes back to the textus receptus ! 
This is rather amusing, seeing that syr sin, discovered since 
Hort’s day, lends its voice to the omission of the Latins 
which Hort followed here, and which justifies him. Poor 
B is left alone, all alone out in the cold. This is a sad 
“sunspot.” 
>yvaatos qv (pro nv yvwotos) BW 4 Paris” Sod? a ec 

Har gat aur W-H™. Cf. syr et boh. 
>eyet ovv tw Tletpw 7 watdioxn 9 Oupwpos §=9BC*LX 33 218 
897 [non al. gr] be f g r gat vg Cyr W-H & Sod izt 
[Hiant de]. 

See as to BCLX just previously under ‘‘ Change of Case” 
where they oppose Cyril. 

2B 








370 


John Les 
xviii. 18. 


xix. 4. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


BCLX remain together here for another change of order with 
(Cyr) but have the additional support of NW and a few 
cursives with a. 


. dels TapeotHKws Toy vNpeTwy (pro els Tay vINP. TapEeTTnKaS 


A plur) S&*BW Sod™ a f g gat vg Cyr W-H & Sod tzt, 
while N°C*LXYY 33 213 604 Laura’ Sod" b c fr vary in 
a third manner with els tov tapertnxotav (vel Tapertotwr) 
umnperov and Paris” eis tov mapertyxoTwy TwY vITNpEeTaV. 


. >n adda enov cot BC*D™°LW [non Sod] sah boh syr Cyr 


vg W-H [non Sod]. 
This against the usual 7 ado cor etmov of N and most as 
Sod™, or n addos cot evtrev of (M)NSITI and a few, and 7 adroe 
got Tept eyou ettov 3 Sod, 


. See under “ Latin.” . 


> ovdeyiav artiay evpioxw ev avtw §=9 B11 33 73 Sod’? 1448 5 400 
aeth vg* Cyr et W-H & Sod tat (cf. largely differimg orders - 
in others. Sah and boh grouped by Tisch here do not agree 


” exactly). 


28. 


33. 


xx. 17. 


. Large variety of order here. 


11. Important. See under “‘ Syriac.” 


. Great variety. See under ‘‘ Coptic and Latin.” 
. See under “ Coptic and Latin.” 
. >Pacirevs tov Tovdacov expe BLXY 33 314 Sod (aeth) 


[non W non Paris” non al. vid.] W-H [non Sod]. 
ewe is omitted by syr and vg®. Possibly it was missing from 
the B® exemplar and carried in from the margin. 
See under “ Latin.” 
>78n avrov teOvqxota (pro avtov nbn tebv.) BLW Orig 
W-H [non Sod]. (Tisch “:: qui ordo corrigendus videbatur.”) 
The mass with Cyr have avrov nbn. TeOvnxora, but c ff qr 
vg? arm aeth georg (sax) Auct™™ do not express 767. This 
may possibly be basic, owing to the differing order as between 
BLW Orig alone and all the rest (including all Soden’s new 
witnesses) with Cyril. In St. John r of the Latins is quite 
important with a very old text. It is notable thai the 
“ Egyptian" Latins c and f also omit, while vg™ is as old as 
any of them in base. Is it the Latins who once again 
preserve the base ? 
> pn amrou pou (pro py pov anrov) B* with Teré™ (ne, 
inquit, contigeris me”) and some versions as} syr arm aeth 
copt, but against every other Greek including the new Egyptian 





t 


For further particulars see the ‘ Morgan Gospels,’ pp. 882/383. 


¢ But some exchange “ touch me not” for ‘draw not near me.” 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 371 


Toh 
i Lectionary, Amélineau p. 63 [Evst 47 only omits povf] 


against the Latins expressly noli me tangere, and against the 
host of Fathers Iren™ Resp" ' Orig*ts QOrig™ Eusttes 
Eustath Epiph™ Chr Cyr That Sever al. 

B does not even substitute po: (Pindar) for pou. Hort 
carries pn avtov pov religiously into his margin, but no one else 
considers it seriously and the Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it. 
Another “sunspot” I suppose. There are many recorded in 
these pages. 

xxi. 17. >avta ov (pro cv mavta) SNBC*DNW Sod™® 33 [non al. 
minn Sod] a dé ff m aur vg syr W-H Sod tat. 
$18. > lwo. oe (pro ae bwo.) NBC? Cyr [non al. Sod], of. copt 
: (syr) [non lat] W-H Sod tzt. 
22, 23. See under “ Latin.” 
24. See ‘ Genitive before the Noun.” 


Hopelessness of considering B neutral, when he can never understand 
Christ's character. 


xii. 28. We have here to indict B on a frightful count. We indict 
him for mutilating scripture without the shadow of excuse, 
and this in a most important place. His changes of tense, or 
suppression of the article, or niceties of expressions by 
“pairs * are nothing to this. In the short expletive prayer 
of our Lord, introduced in verse 27 by the words vuv n yuyn 
pou Terapaxtas kat Tt evrw; Our Lord continues: matep cwoov 
HE EX TNS wWPAS TaUTHS ' aAA| Sia tovto nAOov ets THY wpay 
tavtmv. Ilatep Sofacov zov To ovopa. 7 

The reply is reported swiftly in the words following: \6ev 
ovy gavy ex tov oupavov~ xa edofaca kar Tarw dofacw 
without mentioning any “object.” Therefore B was free to 
alter the record in the prayer itself, and he does so. 








+ d" is wrongly quoted by Tisch for omission. It omits the second, not the first 
pov. Soden commits a bad blunder here, citing N and D, W and 848, ‘af’ and Orig for 
the omission of this first pov. They all omit the second only (post rarepa prim.) with 
the possible exception of 848 (Sod'") whose actual readings Soden is the first to report 
fully. Soden does not mention der here (his’™) and so does not repeat Tischendorf’s 
error, but places it with the others for —pov post marepa prim. He neglects however the 
only us which does omit outright, viz. Hvst 47, a8 he makes a practice of avoiding the 
teatimony of Lectionaries nearly everywhere. (Evst 47 is a most important document in 
every way and will bear the closest watching. Its absence from von Soden’s apparatus 
ig most regrettable. It is often alone with very ancient and important witnesses, e.g. at 
John ii. 19 with Zgnatiue alone.) Matthaei refers to Origen‘ where he would seem 
to exclude pou with Evsé 47. 

+ But B has xa: aAdos {woei ce alone, as sah boh, while NC* have xa: addce (acovew 
ce, and syrr add to gird: ‘thy loins.’ Therefore B remains alone with certain versions 
(against the Latin). 

282 








372 
Tobn 


xiii, 26. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


B writes: Hatep S0facov pov to ovopa. He has the support 
of one minuscule (of which we rarely hear), viz. Evan 5 
[neglected by Soden]. Hort and the R.V. do not exhibit 
a trace of this in their texts. In Hort’s margin is found 
“Ap.” In the Appendix is found “xii. 28 ro dvopa] tov 
visv,” nothing more. So we turn to vol. ii. ‘Notes on Select 
Readings,’ p. 89, col. 1. Here we find the variation tov vov 
for to ovopa described as Alexandrian, but—would it be 
believed ?—not having the grace or the face to refer to the B 
reading at all! Now whether we read with L[negl. Sod.JXX° 
and Athanasius matep Sofacov cov tov vior, or with B wartep 
So0Eacov pov ro ovoya [instead of marep Sokacev cov to ovopal 
the result is the same, and we find this most Alexandrian 
reading in B (which we were told was absolutely free from 
such things). Hort’s silence is not dignified. It is worse. 
For he has said that he could find no trace of any Alexandrian 
reading in B in any book of the New Testament. Therefore 
it is specious here to hide behind the view that wou for gov is 
amere error. Cyril has said este Sofacov cov tov voy exe 7 

ypadn, etre Sokacov cov To ovopa, rovToy eoTiy TH THY Oewpn- 
pater axpiPea (xii. 28, xvii. 1), so that he brings together both 
readings. After the correct reading here: Sofacov cov to ovopa 


. D adds ev ry 80 9 exxov rapa cot mpo Tou Tov Kocpov yeverOat 


which is a phrase erroneously brought back from John xvii. 5. 
D would therefore really like to read with B or Alexandria, 
for in xvii. 5 the previous clause reads cas vuv Sofacov pe ov, 
martep, (continuing) tapa ceavtw ty S0&q 4 etxov Tpo Tov Tov 
Koopov evvas mapa cot. [At xvii. 5 D has yeveoOas tov xoopov 
for rov xoopor ewas. | 

We have here then a clear case of Alexandrian editing by B. 
Foolish editing too. Because, when our Lord quickly adds 
“But for this came I to the selfsame hour,” he debars any 
thought of “ Glorify me” or “ Glorify my name” or “ Glorify’ 
Thy Son,” and the editors have properly accepted the wording 
of the prayer to be “ Glorify Thy name,” in Him if you will 
(as Tert once: glorifica nomen tuum in quo erat filius). 

vou is not a mistake or a slip made by B. It is most 
deliberate. If it is wrong why did not Hort own up and say 
so? And as his silence says it ts wrong how can such a text 
be “neutral ” ? 


Harmonistic. 


+rapBaver nat (ante S:8wow) BCLMX et X* 33 213 892 
So@* 5119 geth Orig? W-H d& Sod txt against NDWY 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 373 


Joho 
Paris*' and the rest and the versions and Cyr. The opposition 


is so strong that this may have come from the Aafor in all 
three of the synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22, Luke 
xxii. 19). In 1 Cor. xi, 23 it is ekaPev. 

xix. 41. qv teexpevos (pro eteOy) SBW Paris® Laura4™® Cyr but 
these only, miserable band of Alexandria contradicted by 
Origen. Cf. positus erat latt here, and ¢f. Luc xxiii. 53 qv 
ovbers ovderr@ xetuevos. In fact Tischendorf says “‘ ex Luc 23, 
53” and refuses to displace ereO from his text. Bolder (and 
stupider) is Hort, who places nv reOetpevos in his text without 
marginal alternative. The R.V. more wisely follows in 
Tischendorf’s footsteps and retains ereOy (but the Oxford 
edition of 1910 has no note on the evidence). Soden’s text 
follows Hort and NBW Paris”. He adds Laura4™ to the 
small group. 


Example of Conflation exhibited only in this “ Neutral” text of B. 


vii. 39. ove yap nv mvevpa without addition by NKTIIV Sod 42: 
91 280 w" (oh sah) arm Orig™* Dion Cyri" Hesych 
Orig" 1/38 Rebapt Tisch & W-H txt, 
LNXW une® & vg* Did Ath Chr Thdé Orig’ 1/3 Tat. rec. & Sod 
tat add ayiov. 
Eus andabe fglrx aur gat vg” syr pesh cu sin add dedopevor. 
D df goth (aeth) add ayov em (in d f) autos. 

But it is left for Bet q syr hier Orig'™1/8 to conflate by 
adding aytov SeSouevov. B has no Greek support t but 254 = 
aytov S0ev, which is distinctly a critical codex; its corrections 
being only used by the critics when they favour N or B 

Now the situation is quite clear here, and Hort recognised 
it by following N and the Fathers against B. What becomes 
of his “neutral” text in B then? This is worse than a 
“sunspot” or “sunstroke” as regards B [see Souter], for it 
is deliberate tampering with tke deposit. Nor does Hort 
himself conduct his enquiry into this matter better than B. 
In the margin of bis text opposite mvevya (tantwm) is found 
“ Ap.” and we therefore turn to the Appendix (p. 574). But 
there we find no word about the misconduct of B. Instead we 
find this, and only this: 

“vii, 89] mvedua] + Sedopuevor; also + dyov: also + ayov 
én’ abrots: also + aytov deSopévov.” 

+ What does von Soden mean by citing ¢ (before ‘it** q f"’) for omission of ayov? 
True, Hans von Soden’s “African” text lacks it, but ¢ reads: '‘ nondum autem ‘ape erat 
sanctus datus.” 

t Soden adds A‘ (= X>). 


374 


i. 18. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


That is absolutely all. Not a word as to the culprit B who 
perpetrated the addition referred to lastly. In vol. i. p. 82 
(‘Notes on Select Readings’) he goes into the matter a little 
more fully, but as usual cannot recognise what the readings 
mean. Under tayov he has “ Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian) 
and Syrian,” under +ayov Sedopevov he has no remarks. 
Well, of what family is it? I have said before that Dr. Hort 
could not recognise his own children when he saw them. I 
repeat the accusation here. And if he could not, how can 
his followers ? : 

This is his illuminating remark on the subject : 

“The singular distribution of documents is probably due in 
“ part to the facility with which either éysov or SeSouevov or 
“ both might be introduced in different quarters independently. 
“Text” [i.e. ‘ wvevpa"] “ explains all the other readings, and 
“ could not have been derived from any one of them.” Thus 
he utterly condemns B here. 

Well then B’s usefulness is destroyed? Not a bit. of it. 
Hort seizes the first opportunity to follow B again in the next 
verse +{or:] where B with only D (against the rest and Orig 
Cyr) inserts this in the coptic method. . 


General Improvement. 


(omission). B and one cursive (17) omit the second clause 
ovde ex OedAnpatos avSpos. This is either because of homoio- 
teleuton,t or more likely because there seems something 
of tautology in “ ovde ex Oehnwatos aapkos ovde ex Gehnparos 
av8pos.” ‘But for B’s bad record previously we would not 
select this against him. The omission is opposed by all else, 
by W 892 and Paris”, by all versions,f and by Tertullian and 
other Fathers, except Athanasius and Eusebius, who omit with 


’ B, and Ath appears deliberate. This is another Alexandrian 


ii. 15. 


reading as witnessed to by Ath, which is shared by B, and the 
existence of which Hort denied. 

ta xeppata (pro to xepya). BUT°XW Ozyr 33 213 314 
Paris” b gq copt arm Orig Eus W-H tat [nil in mg] Sod™ 


” against all others and Nonnus. This seems to be an effort 


at (mistaken) improvement, and has support ‘of Ozyr™? W 





+ E* and a very few omit the first clause ovde ex ded. capxos. 

t Sah has it, but alone changes the beginning, writing ‘“‘ These were not out of the 
wish of blood and flesh, nor out of the wish of man,” for a ovx ef aiparoy ovde ex 
OeAnparos capros avie ex OeAnparos avdpos. If sah considered the matter we may 
be sure that B did, although B adopts a different plan. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 375 


Joh 
as and copt as well as Origen fully. Hence it is certainly 


Egyptian. As to the neighbouring places in the same verse, 
observe following, where N 157 and Epiph, almost alone, 
have xateorpeyev, and most Greeks with Origen (over 1/2) 
aveotpeyev, BWXII? 61 108 234 247 251 252 435 q** r** (Sod 
only quotes 251) Sod?@*% 416 go with Cyr and Oxyr" W-H 
trt for averpewev. The Old Syriac only begins again at ii. 16, 
so we do not know if it employed singular or plural for 7o 
xepua or for ex axorvwv, but we may note that 33 and 71 
Sod 40 fF and g use ex axouov alone here. 

iii. 834. —o Geos sec, NBC*LT’W 1 33 213 2°° Paris’ be fl Cyr 
(syr cu) W-H & Sod tzt, against all the rest and syr copt 
aeth Orig et Orig™ Chr Did Cyr Ang’, This seems to be 
an endeavour to remove redundancy. 

iv. 51. (Indirect for dramatic direct oration). Aeyovres ort o mais 
avtovu ty by NABC and W 185 Sod cdf ff gl r gat aur vg 
arm W-H d& Sod tzt and the inevitable textual muddler 
Origen in the proportion of 1/3. 

This is opposed by D® LYTAAT une? minn omn rell (ef N ote o vos 
cov t) abeq syr cu sin pesh hier sah boh aeth Chr Cyr with direct 
oration, employing gov for avrov. It is confirmed by Orig? (on the 
next page following the quotation avrou‘*”") plus Origen (ex Heracl.'"). 

Tisch misquotes 13 for cov. In Ferrar’s edition 13 reads: 0 mats cov 
0 vtos avtou (but the rest of the family cov with all other minuscules). 

In a question of this kind when the Semitic versions are so strong 
for direct oration, the minuscules should be decisive. What is their 
verdict? None uphold avrov.t Not even 892 nor Paris” nor 33 (the old, 
queen of cursives” before discovery of 892 and Paris”) nor 28 which 
here opposes and neutralises the testimony of W. 

May L ask, if it is a question of revision, who would revise back to 
direct oration? The thing is unimaginable. If avrov were original, the 
whole series of “ Antioch ” revisers (and they are represented by other 
Egyptian mss) could never have put back cou so successfully. 

Joho 

iv. 52. eemoy ovyv BCLNWY 1 83 50 213 291 2°° Sod’ Paris” 
W-H Sod txt but no versions except arm. The others and 
Cyril have «at extov with &, but T" Sod'*” ¢ foss with sak boh 
and the middle-Egyptian version, and the syrr omit the 
copula. The “neutral” text is therefore with copé syr, and 
the ovv of BCL is a sheer improvement. 

53, Similarly exewn 17 wpa ev y by NBCT® 1 minn aligs@ 


¢ Soden now alduces two critical codices for it, his! at Patmos, and his # = 185 
at Florence. 








* 376 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 
John 
W-H & Sod txt for ev exewy 77 wpa ev 7 should be compared 
to Latin, but it avoids a double ev. 

y. 29. A little “‘ nicety ” of B alone: 

o ta ayaba Totncavres ets avacTacW Sons ot (— Se) ta Gavra 
ampakavres €lS avacTaciv KPLOES. 

This is another of those “ pairs" which B always gives his 
(Alexandrian?) attention to. No other Greeks support the 
omission of Se. Soden does not add one single witness to B. 
Not even the faithful 213 (Sod). Nor do Y 892 or Paris” 
add their voice for omission. W indeed writes xas ot alone of 
Greeks with m bok” syr arm Iren™, The support for B’s 
reading (which W-H adopt)t is Latin, viz. Tert Aug ae ff 
and sahidic.t I add this therefore also under the heading 

_  Latin-Coptic.” . 

vi. 9. —ev (post raSaptov) NBD[contra Sod )LNU*WY 1157 al* 
Sod" a b del syr cu aeth Orig Chr Cyr et W-H & Sod tzt. 
Apparently to remove a superfluous word. Why should any 
add? (Coptic emphasises with the indefinite article owujnpe 
sah, odors bok, eliminating the & following). 

42. Yet another case of “pairs.” The second ovros is removed 
from the verse by BCDLTW Sod min. pauc. W-H & Sod txt 
ad ff q sah boh syr cu sin arm aeth Chr Cyr, but against 
all others. Why should it have been added? It is pleonastic 
in Greek, but not so semitically speaking. 

vii. 4. See under “ Latin.” ’ 

6. Another question of “pairs.” For: ‘‘o xatpos o eos ovTe 
mapeatty o Se Katpos o upeTEpos WavTOTE ETTEY ETOLHOS . 
B substitutes in secundo loco wapeotiv for eorw to make 
the antithesis euphonious or perfect. It appears to be in 
very questionable taste, and presupposes that every other 
us changed the second mapeoti to ecrw for opposite reasons. 
Not a single other Greek does this, nor 892 nor Paris” nor 
any of Soden’s otherwise sympathetic cursives. Some vulgates 
(FEITQVK'Z), but no vett, have adest for est here, but all 
vett carefully distinguish, having venit or adventt or adest (e) 
in the first place, and est uniformly in the second place. Sak 
and bok both differentiate and so do syrr. W-H keep a 
discreet silence, printing eorev. 





t Really in all these matters Hort surpasses himself. The evident reincarnation 
of an Alexandrian critic of the third or fourth century, he has managed to mislead 
modern “scholars” into thinking that all these little “ niceties” were basic, and that a 
“revision” forsooth excluded them allt 


t Boh strongly opposes, some bok having pleonastically OOP, NH AE. 


John 
vii. 8. Although B has large support here for ovrw avaBatve, the 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 377 


consensus of opinion of antiquity (Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Ephr 
Aug Auct quaest) is with SDKMII} it! vg boh (diserte) arm 
aeth syr cu sin georg slav pers for ovx ava8awo, which Hort 
only places in his margin, retaining ovrw avaf. in his text. 
Can anyone suppose that if B had been on the other side it 
would not have turned the scale? Yet here, although 
supported by sah and W, it is manifestly an ancient 
“improvement” which D and the good Latins, syr bok and 
the bulk of the versions, will have none of. I regret that 
the Oxford edition of 1910 follows Hort with ov7w in text 
and ove in margin, instead of reversing it.$ In this connection 
I would like to remind Dr. Souter of his own words quite 
recently expressed (‘Text and Canon,’ p. 129): ‘‘ The readers 
of the present work would do well to ponder every word he 
writes on the subject of New Testament textual criticism, 
for no authority of our time surpasses him in learning and 
judgment.” This sentence refers to Professor F. C. Burkitt, 
and this is what he has to say of situations exactly such as 
the evidence indicates in St. John vii.8: “The question at 
issue is what right we have to reject the oldest Syriac and 
the oldest Latin when they agree” (F.C. B. ‘Introduction’ to 
Barmard’s Clem), because, as he says elsewhere (op. cit.) : 
‘ With Clement's evidence before us we must recognise that the 
EARLIEST texts of the Gospels are fundamentally ‘ Western’ in 
every country of which we have knowledge, even in Egypt.” 
I have already used these remarks of Dr. Burkitt elsewhere, 
as headings to my study of the books of Dinuma and Moling, 
and Dr. Souter will please to recognise that I “ ponder 
every word” of Dr. Burkitt on the subject. Perhaps more 
than he (Dr. Souter) does, for if Dr. Souter (op. cié., p. 138) 
approves the addition of the words xal rijs vippys at Matt. xxv. 1 
which “has now received the support of the Old Syriac 
version and is therefore proved to be ‘ Western’ in the 
widest, and not merely in the geographical sense,” he must 
apply the same canon of criticism to other places, irrespective 
of B and NS. As a matter of fact this addition of nal rijs 
vipdys stands upon another footing, and I am not at all clear 
that we should receive it. The valuable cursive 892 reads 
alone trav vupdiwv for tod vuppiov Kal ris viudns, revealing 
a, situation which calls for very detailed examination.§ This 


¢ Add 17** 389 pser weer Pecr Laura 104 Sodsl0 1001 1246 8 871 & 369, 
+ Soden does reverse it against Sod™, having our avaSawe in text and ovme in margin. 
§ rw vupgiw C 157 soli, ut laté sponso. 


378 


Jobn 


vil. 34. 


ibid. 


36. 


39. 


41, 


" copEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


feaaing of 892 I have not seen referred to aiyeare, and 
Dr. Souter himself has not used Dr. Rendel Harris’ very 
interesting collation of this valuable British Museum codex. 
Bat the proposition holds good, viz. if we are to believe DX2n™ 
latt syr arm Orig™ Tichon Arnob Op™ Hil for +xas rns vupdns 
in Matt. xxv. 1 against Aug and the rest, how much more are 
we to believe D latt syr strengthened by NKMII arm aeth 
georg slav pers boh Porph Epiph Chr Cyr Ephr Aug Quaest 
at John vii. 8. 

In such connections we can profitably study matters of 
order, such as vii. 12 33 (see under ‘‘ Order’), where perhaps 
the basic text omitted the word subsequently added in 
different positions. 

Another question of “pairs.” To: “&rycete we wat ovx 
evpycere” BNTX [non fam 1 teste Lake] 213 258 2° wt 
Sod'** sah boh syr aeth W-H [non Sod] would add pe to 
complete the ‘‘ pair.” It is difficult to suppose that all others 
including DW Soar 892 Paris removed the second pe. Tether 
is it a “ version ” influence on BTX. 

Observe in the same verse fin. that B alone (cf. georg arm) adds 
exet, which can be traced to the unique addition by the sahidic 
and bohatric here of epog (‘ to it”). 

B[non NJTX sak boh syr aeth, with G 1[non fam], 892 2°° W-H 
this time, again add & second pe in the same phrase as in 
vii. 34, 

In the latter case G 1 892 join, and N 213? 258 w** Sod ? 
abandon BTX and the four versions which remain constant 
in the error with Westcott and Hort. 
3’ (pro of) B and EKMSUVAS min® and 604 [non 892 
(Harris ed.) non Paris") but against NDGHLNTWXIAN ai. 
pl and Cyr" Chr Thdor®*! Cyr (Nonn) Thdt; in other words, 
B has no Patristic support. It is rather a difficult construc- 
tion, and.B with LTW Evst 18 proceeds to. change the tense 
of miorevorres following, to mictevoavtes, and then conflates 
with ayiov SeSouevov as against omission of both words by 
NETII Orig Cyr, while some add ayov and some add dedopevor. 
It will be observed that B’s supporters LT and W are in 
varying positions in this verse in the three changes under 
review. [See ante as to addition by B.] 
In the “ pair” of expressions ado. ..aAXor it is to be noticed 
that some and 1 33 248 al. ac f ff vg sah boh arm (aeth) Orig 
Cyr add de after the second adAot, which is found also in 
textus receptus and in sah against its usual method; 
(BLNTXW Sod substitute of de). 

Now St. John’s method seems to be against this, for at 





John 


vii. 46. 


viii. 16. 


19. 
38. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 379 


ix. 9 addor eAeyov...ahdAo1 eXeyor remains without copula and 
only 8 and a few add &, while B and the great majority 
abstain. I mention it because there are other places involved, 
allin the same class, as, in the same chapter vii. above at verse 
12: of pev edXeyou. ..addor eXeyov, where BTXW Sod sah boh 
Cyr and a number of Old Latins (with textus receptus again) 
add Se. I had not intended to mention this place, supported 
as it is by ¢ f fg l vg (although observe that b de qtr 8 foss 
oppose),f but when comparing vii. 41 and ix. 9 it became 
evident that the +8 on behalf of all those who add is 
probably anti-neutral and in the nature of revision. 

Following a variety of changes of order in the phrase ovderore 
edadnoev ovtas avOpwros (order of BLNTX Orig Cyr), it is to 
be observed that BLT W 225 229* boh and Cyr Orig drop the 
clause following (against % and the rest) of “ws ovros (AaAet) 
0 avOpwros.” The semitic doublet was objected to. Tischen- 
dort remarks “ offendebat scripturae prolixitas, hinc addita- 
mentum vel in brevius contraxerunt vel totum omiserunt.” 

9 Kplots Eun adnOLyy cot BDLTXW 33 213 892 Sod® 
Orig 1/2 W-H & Sod txt, against the use of adnOns by the 
others. d and the latins use verum. Only gat vg® vary with 
justum as Sicasa co Sod? 5411250 Fys¢ 60 [Huan 157 does not 
join Evst 60] Cyr Chr 2/38. It does appear as if adknOwy 
were more in the nature of an “improvement” than other- 
wise. Why should the rest abandon it? It would have 
been a welcome variation from the use of ans above, if 
correct, and certainly not tampered with by all the rest 
including ¥ and Paris’. (D has adnOetwn alone at viii. 14.) 
See under “ Order.” 

kas upets ovv @ NKovTaTE Tapa tov watpos. This (instead of 
.. .ewpaxate...of the rest), by BCKLX and X°W 1 (181) [non 
118-209] 4 5 fam 13 [non 124] 15 83 42 68 91 116 122** 145 
213 229** 249 299 dpiw** and 892 Sod *! Pf goth boh aeth* 
arm Origrities dtserte Oyy (non & rell, non V, non Paris”, not even 
Laura4 ], This is of course to avoid the difficulty, hence 
against the canon of the “harder” reading to be preferred. 
Hort swallows nxoveare and his margin is silent. Soden acts 
similarly. Clem** is silent, but NDTW Paris” and eleven 
other uncials are not, nor the Latins nor sah nor syr sin nor 
Tert, who all witness to ewpaxare and vidistis§ as Tischendorf 


+ Tisch misquotes g on the other side. 

t a= et alii, for which Soden also quotes 7, but r in Abbott's edition has plainly 
...8t (for est) alii dicebant. Soden’s collator seems to have misread e¢ for ...st. 

§ f only of Latins with goth join B in improving. 








John 


viii. 39. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


diligently explained by quoting Apollin™ © in fall “ ewpaxevat 
Kat Tapa Tw TaTpt Aeywr ovK OfOardpav Tia opacw edyrwoer 
arra yvoctv puaiknyy, ever Kar exetvos Gackav ewpaxevat 
Tapa To watpt avtwy ove oer Sntovbev ewpaxevat Aeyer adda 
TN evotxoven Tovypta...”’ Yet we persist in receiving Origen’s 
third century “improvement” against this fourth century 
witness diserte and Tertullian earlier. The Oxford edition of 
1910 follows Hort here to its discredit. ‘Will the critics not 
kindly apply Burkitt’s canon at this place also, and see in the 
consentient voice of syr sin and syr pesh pers arab (cu is 
wanting) with the diatessaron (quoting Jno viii. 12/60 in full 
sequence) and all the Latins [but /] with sah georg slav and 
Apollin and Tert a full rebuttal of the “improving” voice of 
Orig and his minions, even with syr hier added to them? 

Here is Hort’s weak note, in ‘Notes on Select Readings,’ 
p. 88: 


“Vili, 88. & éyw...marpos] 4éyo & édpaxa mapa 7 watpt pov 


[raéra] Nard Kal Speis ody & éwpdxate Tapa TO Tatpl bpavr 
Western and, with 6 twice substituted for &, and taira 
omitted, Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Aeth.): but aeth omits you and 
ipéev.” For later and better information [von Soden to the 
contrary notwithstanding] ¢f. Merz pp. 208/212 in the Johannes 
volume, and note (on p. 209) his expression: “und es ist 
Willkiir zu sagen, B hat iiberall hier das Richtige.” 

Another very important question of “ pairs” or more than 
“‘pairs.””. es rexva tov ABpaap eate ta epya tov ASpaap 
mwotetre. So B* and the vg alone followed by W-H tzt. 
Origen is on both sides, quoting very often. Now most 
authorities, with Hus Hpiph Cyr Did Bas Cyr4! have qre - 
and eosette, while those who join B for eore, viz. NDLT 
Evst 60, still follow with evore:te, and some have emote av. 
The cursives are practically all for re and emoverre or emoverte 
av. True 604 has rovete, but retains av. Paris® has re and 
emoeite av. The Coptics and the Versions oppose B; syr sin 
appears to support. I hardly think B has preserved the 
“neutral” text. If so, why do sah and boh not follow? It 
looks rather as if B and Origen here were playing a part, for 
Origen knows and gives both readings. The Old Latins, with 
the exception of ff, are against B, while 6 and Orig" add 
utique. 

The matter has no importance in one sense, and yet in 
another it has a very great importance. The record of B as 
exhibited in these pages is not sufficiently good to trust him 
without better support. D and the supporters having cote 
follow with emote. The transition from eore to emovete 


B IN ST, JOHN’S GOSPEL. 381 
John 


offends apparently, yet they retain. While ecre may therefore 
be basic, orecre seems to be the reverse; 7re may indeed be a 
revision, but erorecte rather than movecre appears basic. 
Note.—In case it should be thought that I had gone crazy over 
questions of “‘ pairs,” I would like to exhibit another place in St. John 
quite in the heart of these changes by B, where N indulges in this, in 
order to show that the changes were either premeditate on the part of 
both Mss or were influenced by a version. Observe then that at 
Jobn vii. 22 in the clause: ovx ote ex Tov pwveews EaTIV arr Ex Tov 
matepwv, an additional or: is supplied by X after aA. This is shared 
by syr cu sin, but Not by sah boh, as might have been expected, nor by 
the other versions, and is found in no other Greek or Latin witness. 
My point therefore appears to be well taken that the changes were made 
to “improve.” It is extremely unlikely that such complementary 
expressions should have been removed by any revisor. Why, for 
instance, should YW or 892 or Paris” or Laura4™, all derived from a 
similar Ms to the parent of N and B, cut out this second os? Why 
also should they all have ev ca@farw while B with b e r quite alone 
omit ev in this same verse? Do they not preserve the true text as 
against B and & respectively in BOTH places ? 
John 
viii. 51/52. We now come to one of the grossest disfigurements of the 
text in the whole of the narrative perpetrated by B. The 
facts are so clear that Westcott and Hort abandon his 
testimony completely and do not even give the reading a place 
in their margin, although B has the support of Hus¢ 32 and e, 
to which now add Paris”. It is not discussed in Hort’s 
‘Notes on Select Readings,’ for it would have been exceed- 
ingly distressing to him to discuss it. But was it honest to 
pass it by in silence? Let the facts speak for themselves.f 
Burgon omitted to comment on this because Hort and the 
Revision mercifully left the record alone. But in an arraign- 
ment of codex B it is my duty to record the shameful 
mutilation of scripture here, justifying all I have previously 
said of B as to “ pairs” of expressions. 

In John viii. verse 51 the Saviour says: ‘ Auny apn devo 
pty eav Tis Tov epov Aoyov (Or Tov Aoyov Tov E“ov OY TOV oyou 
pou) tnpnon, Gavarov ov pn Bewpney as Tov aiwva.” 

In verse 52 the Jews reply: “vuv eyrwxapev ote Saspoviov 
exes. AfSpaap ameOavev xat or mpogytat, Kat ov Aeyels” Eav THs 
Tov Xayov pov (Or pov TIS TOV Noyov, OF Tes prov Tov Aoyov, OF 
[33 Orig] zis Tov epov Aoyov) TyPHOD, OVD YyevonTat 
Oavarou (ets Tov acwva om. Dbed Ff I syr sin).” 





+ Souter also ignores it in his notes to the Oxford edition of the N.T. 1910. 








382 
John 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


In verse 52, however, B calmly substitutes @avarov ov wn 
Gewpyon for ov py yevontat Cavarov, repeating the form of 
verse 51 in order to make no difference in the wording of the 
Jews’ reply to the actual words spoken by our Lord. Evst 32 
does the same, so does ¢ latin, and so does Paris unknown 
to Hort, and a new witness 213 (*) adduced by Soden. 
But this last support only justifies all I have said as to 
such particular cursive testimony not helping B but re- 
accusing his text of an ancient error. No other authority 
changes, for the simple reason (as Hort and the Revisionists 
admit) that the record is perfectly plain that the Jews in 
their excitement repeated the phrase of verse 51 in slightly 
different language. Origen is a witness to this effect, which 
Hort here dared not put aside. Neither Tisch nor Tregelles nor 
Hort nor the Revision nor Souter nor Soden then follow B, 
although it had both Greek and Latin support. If we look 
into the matter still more closely we shall find that syr sin, 
some MSS of pesh (but not diatess) and aeth, while holding 
‘shall not taste of death” in verse 52, put taste back into 
verse 51, replacing Gewpnon there by yevonras, exactly for the 
same purpose of harmonising the records in verses 51 and 52. 
What a clear picture of these critical authorities dealing with 
scripture.t : 

Now such absolutely unpardonable handling of the record 
by B here, raises afresh the whole question of the readings 
of this ms elsewhere, which Hort asks us to accept in so 
many other places, as does Dr. Souter. The latter in his 
‘Text and Canon’ (p. 103 seg) has this to say of Westcott and 
Hort: “Their work is held in the highest esteem in all 
civilised countries, and on the foundation they have laid the 
future will do well to build:” But if the foundations are 
insecure, as I claim to have shown in this volume, is it not 
an unfortunate myopia from which Dr. Souter and others are 
suffering? Do they really know B? I cannot believe it 
possible, or Dr. Souter would not write on p. 22 (op. cit.) after 
citing two of the “secondary traces here and there in its 
text”: “But such features are like spots in the sun.” 
The features to which I have drawn attention, of this con- 
stant striving for “consistency,” for running the narrative 
in “pairs,” for general lingufstic or grammatical “ niceties” 
or “improvements,” with occasional “conflations” or bold 


t The omission of ets rov a:wrva at the end of verse 52 by Dd bec ff t and eyr sin is 


not perhaps on the same footing. 





Johy 


ix, 14. 
16. 


20 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 383 


“harmonies,” culminating in this passage in John viii. 51/52, 
proves something quite different, and it is evident that 
textual theories and a text built upon B are liable to be swept 
away owing to the foundations being quite insecure. As to 
“spots in the sun” they may not perceptibly dim the bright- 
ness of the luminary to eyes some millions of miles away, but 
studied a little more closely they are indications of grave 
danger. These spots on the sun of B have had as 
disastrous an effect on our N.T. studies as have had real 
sunspots on our agricultural situation on many occasions. 

Souter’s simile is unfortunate. Perhaps it is prophetic! 
This matter of harmonising by B in viii. 51/52 is followed so 
closely by another pecaliar matter (viii. 55), see ander ‘‘ Change 
of Case,” that it should be consulted by the student at once. 
There Hort and the R.V. will be found in disagreement, Hort 
following BADW Sod minn* contra™™, while the B.V. 
restores the usual genitive and tacitly accuses Hort’s foundation 
of being wrong. [A somewhat similar case to that of John 
viii. 51/52 may be seen at xvi. 16/17, concerning which note 
Burgon’s remarks in ‘ Causes of Corruption,’ pp. 105/106. ] 
See under “‘ Latin.” 

Another “pair.” The verse begins edeyov ovv... Later for 
ado eheyov, NBDT'W fam 1 fam 18 22 2° Sod’? ¢ drz sah boh 
syr [non pers] (aeth nat), have addor Se eheyov, against the great 
majority without copula. jf (Buchanan) is against it, not for 
it, as Tischendorf says from an uncertain phrase of Sabatier. 
Tisch. also errs as to the vulgates by saying ‘‘ vg‘ et™™” 
but only vg=¥ recorded by Wordsworth have a copula. 
Tischendorf claims ten cursives, but none of Matthaei’s or 
Scrivener’s cursives have it, and it seems to be limited to 
fam 1 fam 13 2° and ‘“‘Colb” (22, confirmed to me by 
Sanders). Others seem to lack it completely and it does not 
appear in 892 nor in Paris” and only in Soden’s *™ of all his 
cursives, but he accepts it openly, although Hort only took it 
into his text in brackets. 

init. amexpiOncav + ovv NB 2” [teste Sod.] Eust 15 g ¢ 
vg® dim Tisch** W-H [nil mg] only against no copula 
DGLT'UWXII 1 33 al. late?! sah boh arm Cyr, and +6€¢ the 
rest and Sod ézt. 

I would not call attention to this, but that the whole graphic 
narrative, abounding in repetitions, must be examined most 
closely (much more closely than I can do in these few notes 
on ch. ix.) and that in ix. 10, ix. 17, 8 or B or NB add an ovr 





¢ See ante and post under all these heads. 





384 


Jobo 


ix. 80. 


31. 


44, 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


which probably does not belong to the text. See also ix. 26. 
The matter is settled as far as I am concerned by observing 
that in ix. 27 B alone with aeth and georg adds an ouy after 7 
(appearing in Hort’s margin). Observe the variations as to 
ovv, Se, cae (NB sah), and the absence of the copula here by 
the mass. 

+1o (ante Gavpacrovy) NBLNT'31 [non fam, although Soden 
quotes 118, which Lake specifically denies] 22? 33 397 
Laura4 4 Sod! sah Chr Cyr W-H & Sod txt against 
omission by all others. Why should the others omit if ro 
were basic? But this should doubtless be referred to coptic 
(sah xE TAI pw Te Tegmnpe, boh xe BAI pw 
re <tajbupt) reproduced by arab alone of later versions. 
Syr has “to wonder” or “mirandum” as @ r, for “ mirabile,” 
and Paris” substitutes eQavpyatov for ro Gavpacrtov ect, while 
all the others with WD and ¥ hold @avpaorov “a wonderful 
thing.” 

See under “Order.” In this the following verse, B again 
follows coptic (against X) apparently disliking the position of 
apaptwduwv after orz, which word would hardly have been found 
there if this order were not basic. 


. Another “pair.” See under ‘‘ Change of Tense.” 


See under ‘‘ Change of Tense.” 


. “oumw Se ednrvOer o enaous es THY KpNY AaAX QV EV TO TOTe 


orov uTavrycey avtw 4 MapGa.” In this quiet and dignified 
sentence, witnessed to by ADLTAAITI une al’ min permult 
and syriac, NBCXX? 1 33 213 242 249 Sod™ some Latins 
and doh introduce er: after nv, while F ae and sah add it before 
nv. The addition in different positions is suspicious in itself, 
but this has never influenced Hort apparently nor the school 
of Hort, for he and the Oxford edition and Soden diligently 
add it. Yet why should the other school have dropped it? It 
savours distinctly of officious “improvement.” Observe that ~ 
sah has AAAA ET! NECaRR Mea and 
boh has AAAA NACOCH OvN TE Hem Med. 
Another question of ‘ pairs ’’ in the final clause : 
“Yvoate avtov cat adete autov virayew.” 

BCL Sod 33 157 Paris® alone of Greeks, copt Orig'*. 
Where are the Latins and the Syriacs? All the Latins (except 
ff with its coptic affiliations) and the Syriacs (except hier and 
diatess) are with N and the mass without the second avrov 
against Messrs. Hort and [Soden]. . 

It is possible that this is a common error of base, however, 
between B and copt, for it is opposed by W as well as N ai. 
It might have occurred from misreading yn in uwayew after 








B IN 8ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 385 


Soha 


agerat (for agete). Thus in W you find apetaiynarein. It 
is important as placing W behind the diatessaron. 

xi. 45, car Gcacapevor & enoinoey N and the great majority, with 
Origen six times (and 6a 314.4) W-H™® Sod™, but 6 BC*DA? 
(also C?** 9 em. onpetov) 1 244 249 Sod'1smCN ¢ goth sah aeth 
W-H“* Sod. This seems to be an absolute ‘‘improvement ” 
referrmg to the miracle of the raising of Lazarus. It 
occurs immediately after verse 44 which recounts the actual 
resurrection, and § is so absolutely natural after Qeacdpevar 
that no one would have changed 6 here to &, while there is 
every reason to change & to 6 as do B and afew. W does not 
do it. Here observe Origen absolutely opposed to B’s “ easy ” 
reading. Origen, &, and Tisch prefer the ‘“ harder’ reading. 

In verse 46 following evrov avrass CD 249 397 with M 
Sod™4 NB ¢ goth aeth repeat 6, but NB and most, this time 
keeping with Origen, have &. I have no doubt @ is right 
in both places. The bohairic shows that criticism of these 
verses was in vogue, for it reverses the whole process, having 
in verse 45 Geacapevot & and in verse 46 exrov avrors 8. 

57. evtodas (pro evtorAqv) NBIMW fam 1 138 254 i* Paris” 2! 
[teste Sod] Sod4* Orig’*. A clear “improvement” adopted 
by Tisch W-H and Soden.t See sub voce “ Indeterminate,” 
after remarks on xi. 54. 

xii. 12. See under ‘' Solecisms of B.” 

13. Apparently another question of “pairs”: evAoynuevos o 
epxouevos ev ovouate Kuptov Kat o Baathevs tov Iapanr. 
Only NBLQ boh aeth and Orig and the editors Tisch W-H 
and Sodent indulge in this second «az o or at any rate they 
alone add the «a: to make the two parts. Some and sah have. 
é before Bactrevs. 

xii, 18. twas (pro ots) Undoubted correction, thinking to improve. 
It occurs in the phrase eyw (yap) oda ous efeAekaunv, and tevas 
is only found in NBCLM 33 157 213 397 Sod'0s 1098 110 1443 34r0 
Origter Cyr adopted by the editors Tisch W-H and Soden.t 
Indeed Orig seems to have a patent on this: “‘rivas efede- 
Eauny, oTep atovetepoy mev TOLOVTOV EOTL* TLS ETTLY ExATTOS wv 








t Imention the three critical editions specifically at these four places to emphasise 
what Burgon said long ago. The critical editors considered and Soden still considers that 
these minority uss are of paramount importance irrespective of the fact that the grouped 
Mss represent hardly more than one tradition. Tocombat this view I am presenting these 
pages. Because Hort supports Tischendorf, and Soden supports Hort, it does not follow 
that they are right. The English Revisera oppose in xiii. 18 and Souter does not give 
the evidence for rivac in his notes! If Souter believed Hort was right it was his duty to 
his readers to give the evidence. Does Souter believe NBCLM 38 157 Orig Cyr and 
Hort to be wrong here? 

2c 





CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


efedefapnv oda.” At first sight twas being the “harder” 
reading might appear justifiable, but it is almost certainly 
editorial. It is contradicted .by all others including WY and 
892 Paris’ so much in accord with the group elsewhere. It 
is also contradicted by all the versions. A trace would surely 
remain elsewhere if revas were correct. As I plodded over 
document after document I was amazed to find no other trace 
of twas until Soden produced two Sinai codices, two at 
Jerusalem, one at Athos, ‘ : 

Baas ovy (pro xat epBavas) NBCLX 33 213 892 Sod'0 fame 


. @ Orig 2/4 and Cyr with the editors Tisch W-H and Soden 


John 
_ xiii, 26, 
37. 
xiv. 7. 


10. 


against the rest.f 
axodovOew aptt (pro axodovOnca apts) B(C*). A sheer 
“improvement.” See under ‘Change of Tense.” Hort 


follows B alone here. 

This is another question of “ pairs,” but different from most. 
Here, for (xa:) awaprt yivwoxete avtov Kat ewpaxate avTov 
by the great mass supported by all the versions and Tertullian, 
BC* and they alone with W-H‘* [and they are often guilty 
of other tricks together; see many instances in St. John 
elsewhere in these pages and just previously] would suppress 
the second avtov, reading amaptt yiwwoxete avtov Kat 
ewpaxate. It ia a perfectly fair criticism that this is editing, 
even if here it be a question of the suppression of one 
of the “pair,” because the place troubled some scribes and 
translators. Thus 33 68 250 da Evst 47*™ 60 and some arm 
suppress xar ewpaxate avtov altogether,} while the slav version 
with X° (= Sod A‘) suppresses the first avrov, writing 


-““Ye knew and ye saw him,” as does the book of Dimma: 


“‘cognoscetis et vidistis eum.” While r (not reported for 
Tischendorf) and vg? are to be added to the Greeks BC for 
the elision of the final avrov. These authorities should be 
added in Tischendorf’s apparatus. Horner does not give r, 
citing only BC, because unfortunately he does not quote 7, 
a very important witness, especially in St. Luke and St. John 
but Soden gives r here. (See beyond again on xiv. 17.) 

Yet another matter of a “ pair.” Instead of 6 Se marnp 6 ev 
euot pevwv of nearly all Greeks (and a c d f q r foss qui in 
me manet) BLY [negl. Sod. YW] Sod*° Orig Aeth Did 
Cyr‘ et com elide the second 6, reading 6 de rarzp ev esos pevov 
(= no doubt vg with b e # g in me manens). -That this was 


t See footnote on page 885. 
t Attributed by von Soden to homoio‘eleuton | 





B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 387 


the Alexandrian way, the unusual consensus of Orig Ath Cyr 
with BLY most freely attests. No cursives appear to join 
(except the two new ones of von Soden mentioned above 
which are quite “of the family”), not even Paris’, and W 
goes with D and the rest against it. But whereas B prefers 
“‘ pairs,” here he seems to dislike the double 6 on account of 
the Se—present in most copies, only absent from a few 
cursives, Had the de been absent: “6 warnp 6 ev enot pevov” 
would not have offended, but in 6 Se warnp 6 it seems to 
have appeared redundant. The other versions seem clearly 
to have read a second 6. It is not trifling to mention this 
matter, for B shows us fetr variations in this one verse: 
(a) motevoes for meotevers with the bohairic alone [boh 
neglected by Soden], (b) —Aeyw alone, (c)~6 ante ev exor with 
LY and Alexandria as above, and finally (d) woe ta epya 
avrov with ND as against moet ra epya avros LX and W 33 
213 Sod" Paris’ Cyr™™ and avros move ta epya A and the 
rest with Orig Ath Ps-Ath Chr Cyr, while ¢ and Tert omit 
autos or avrou altogether, and are perhaps basic. 

Now B cannot be right in all four places. Hort neglects 
the first two (a and b)'as errors, but accepts the other two 
(c and d), thus in the last case (d) opposing Alexandria, as 
represented by Orig Ath Cyr, while going with them in the 
third case (c). This is properly in accord with his principle 
that it is B which is “ neutral,”” however rough the fourth 
case may seem. But what about the first case (a)? Why 
should we lose the mesrevoets of B? It is supported by all 
the bohairic. Is it xot neutral? But I can assure you that 
there is nothing “neutral” in B, Having written avrov 
(= eavrov no doubt) in this verse, he proposes to amend the 
next verse in accordance therewith. Therefore we find B and 
229* (aeth) only writing in verse 11 d:a ta epya auvrov 
matevete poe against Ath and Cyr, who with most have da 
Ta epya avra ttotevete pot, whereas Tert 157 and some 
cursives omit avra and avrov and have only da ta epya 
aot. which is very possibly basic and both the additions 
of later date, since g 7 and syr arm pers diatess and bok also 
omitavraand avrov, Hort has ava in his text and accepts the 
avrov of B in his margin; but neither I think are “ neutral” 
or basic, True the sahidic says “Believe because of his 
works," but this does not agree with B, because sah destroys 
the por at the end of the sentence (as NDL 33 efc.) which B 
holds. B is left absolutely alone with 229* and aeth: ex 
opere ejus credite mihi. 


{Scrivener’s z (seme!) with Paris” has ravza for avta, while 
2¢2 


- 883 


Joho 


xiv. 17. 


tbid. 


ibid. 


23. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


the new Ms W goes with NDL dia ra epya avta mor. absque 
poe fin.] : 

The same thing as at xiv. 7 occurs here as to “pairs.” For: 
ort ov Gewper auto ovde ywwoxe: avto, NBW Paris” and 
a dim Lucif W-H™ [nil mg] alone suppress the second av7o 
against all others, all versions and Didpies, and as showing 
how the matter affected others, Evan 287 vg® Auct™* elide 
the first avro (Soden does not notice this) writing guia non 
videt nee cognoscit eum, exactly as the slav version with X” 
and the book of Dimma acted in verse 7! 

This is followed by the elision of the copula de between vpecs 
and ywaaxete auto by NBQW 346 a’ Paris” Sod™ a b sak 
boh4 Lucif Auct™* W-H & Sod tzt only, after the coptic 
manner [Sod neglects the coptic witness and adds VY (against 
Lake)], again not only against the mass and the versions, but 
against Did™ Cyr™ and Cyr‘, . 

And again in this verse another “pair” of expressions is 
involved. Most mss have pevee and eoras (oT: Tap yu péves 
xa ev uw eorai). Some read pevel=g vg arm Nonn 
(uevéet) and sah [non boh]. It is clear that B understood 
péves [it is so accented in B to-day] for he follows. it with | 
eartv for esta alone of the uncials with D* (corrected by 


‘D*) W and a few cursives (1 Sod’ [non fam] 22 69 [non fam] 


251 254 291 2P° Sod"® 44) and it?! syr goth Lucif W-H™* 
Sod™, but in view of B’s record which I think I have 
fairly exhibited in the previous pages, it is not absolutely 
certain that we can accept eo7iv as original. eoras is difficult 
enough in all conscience following vpers ywwoxere avro, but 
if peve? was intended, eorae would be in order. Sah actually 
reads ‘‘ Ye, ye know him because he will remain with you and 
he will be in you.” Paris®’ here reads earac and does not go 
with B, but W does so. 

Now comes a fitting and most lovely specimen of the manipu- 
lation of voices to obtain a perfect “ pair,” which is not only 
an illustration of what we have contended for, but operates as 
a climax to all that has gone before. 


In the verse azrexpiOn (0) tnaovs xat evrev avtw * cay THs @yaTTa pe, TOV 


Noyor pov 


THpHTEL KaL O TATHP gov ayamTnoeL auTOV, Kat WpPos AvTov 


eXevcopeda Kat uovny Tap avTw Tornooper, nothing virtually is 
changed [except by D, vide infra] until we reach the last word. Here 


instead of 


moinoopev (Or Tonowpev) we are offered Totnaooweba by 


NBLXWIP 1 Sod'® [non fam] fam 13 [non 124] 33 213 249 254 2P¢ Paris®” 
Sod'** ®m CX, This group is practically one, as our presentation of evidence 
elsewhere will show. They offer us then in the final clause the very allite- 
rative sentence: “xa mpos avtov eXevoopweDa Kat povyy Tap avTH 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 289 
woenconeda.”’ May I ask on what grounds any “revision” would 
have desired to displace the middle (given the sense) by the active voice 
here and so to destroy the alliterative assonance? If ro:moouefa had 
been basic, who would have wished to change it to wornvouev? tf On the 
other hand, our repeated exhibition of the views entertained as to “‘ pairs” 
by this very group, headed by B, is most illuminating as to the practical 
certainty that the B group base changed mo:qcouer to morncopefa. And 
the proof is not far to seek. 

How do the Fathers stand? For they surely represent other codices 
long since perished which have not reached us but which are cceval with 
or anterior to the date of B. It is observed that Origen is on both sides, 
but with a large preponderance for woryoopeBa. Athanasius is on both sides, 
Didymus is on both sides, Epiphanius is on both sides, while Husebius 
Marc“ and Cyril, the latter only quoting once, remain on the side of B. 
Hence we:nooyefa in the fifth century was standardized in Alexandria on 
the evidence of Cyril, but in the third and fourth centuries the Patrist‘c 
evidence wavers. What was the reason? The reason appears self- 
evident on its face. Consult Tischendorf's exhibit at this place, and one 
cannot help realizing that while codices used by Origen, Athanasius and 
Didymus surely exhibited wo:moopev, in quoting either from memory or 
from other (manipulated) codices, these Fathers fell very naturally into 
the course of following eXevooueOa by woincopeOa. Not that moincopuela 
was basic, but that it was tunefal, assonant, and admirably fitted the 
sense ‘and we ourselves will make abode with him,” and hence followed 
by all three critical editors, Tischendorf Hort and von Soden. I cannot 
conceive it possible that ‘revision’ changed rormoopuefa to ornooper. 
What does the jury say? And what is the secret then of the middle 
voice employed here? i 

In summing up for them I must not omit to draw their attention to 
the sahidic version: AvW NAEIWT MASEPITY Aww Tithe 
WApo  NTHTARLO NAN NOTA MYNME ZASTHE. 

Whether the sahidic pasr—'' us ’—be the source or the reflection f 
of the B group base, it is most noteworthy. Horner translates : 

And my Father will love him, and we come unto him, and make vor 
us an abiding place with him. Therefore, although the future tense is 
not emphasised, the middle voice is emphasised, and we are to read as 





+ Soden adds only 218 Sod'**%6 but also his commentary families K.C and N, and 
excepts from his H family ¥4 and 8°", This is interesting as bringing against each 
other 218 (his ™) and his $871, as above concerning fam 1 and fam 18, and in emphasising 
the commentary support. Soden adopts romaopeéa in his text, just as his critical pre- 
decessors had done, but that does not give us the “true text.” Sod’ has moiooper. 

$ As to B and sah consider most carefully in this connection the passages under 
Coptic previously tabulated at iv. 16, vii. 8, xii. 16, all of the same character; also vii. 40, 
viii, 28, ix, 11 27, and especially vii. 34, x. 22, xi. 27. 








390 CODEX-B AND ITS- ALLIES. 


from an original zoovper quas or qu, sak.supplying san or equating 
wotoupeda, (Cf. John v.18 icov eavtov. mowv to Gew. Sah renders 
ECU siszoq Sat EROrSTE): Boh ; sepE: nic it@,icoc 
nese df). notte 

In Egypt then John xiv, 23 was ey. with, emphasis on 7a:ngopeda 
or rotouzeOa, which does not imply that the-real-“ neutral ” base was this, 
but that in translation it assumed this force-and possibly. reacted: on the 
Greek. It did not react sufficiently to change the Greek. tense, and on 
the other hand the Greek did. not act on.sah sienna 4 to force me 
retention of the future tense. 

My good friend Macarius of Egypt « comes: once more to help us out 
here. He quotes four times. In. hom*" he has roencopev. In 
hom" he mixes 21/23: xa@ws reyes oT eugavicw avtw epavTov 
Kat povny Tap avtw .woinow (just as D womoouar with e syr cu 
pers), but Macar® “4? is very clear, separating 21/23, and quoting 23: 
ey» Kat o Tatnp edevaopeOa Kat povny Tap avTw Toincopev. Again 
Macar’ rate mens ig just as positive although slightly varying the 
beginning. He writes thus there...xaz o Kupios: eXevoopeba eyw te xat o 
TATNp MOV Kat. povny Tap QUTW TOLNTOMEY. . 

This is brilliant side-testimony contemporary with the oldest ccdices 
which oppose with woigoopeOa. And if Macarius was not influenced 
by the nar of the Coptic, I think we may rest fully assured that 
motnoopev (and not mwomaopeba) is the basic text, and was changed to 
wotnoo peda by the family of codices under indictment. 

My friends of the Opposition will find it hard to debate this question 
against Macarius. The. jary will-not lightly -put aside bis triple sworn 
testimony. If then the jury is satisfied with my new witness (whom 
Tischendorf did not bring iato Court) I see no outlet but for a favourable 
decision at their.hands on this and on the similar and cognate eounte 
which are sub judictbus. 

Notwithstanding Macarius’ testimony and that of the mass, and not. 
withstanding all I have said above, I have no doubt that critical editors 
will retain rorngope@a till the end of.time because it is. such @ 
“GooD” ura And that tells the usual tale ‘of preferences versus 
scientific princip'es. 

The usual intimate relations cf the latin, M8 ¢ to the Coptic are 
however maintained here; for ¢ alone writes “ apud eum manemus”’ (cf. 
slav goth and saz}, for ‘‘ aput eum manebimus”: of a, which mss do not, 
like the vulgate and iz", use the literal ‘‘mansionem apud eum faciemus.”” 

[Note. D*® substitutes eXevoouar and wamoopa with only d@ e 
veniam. ..faciam, supported by syr cu and pers, but not syr sin nor any. 
other. The adhesion of pers is interesting as making this change on the 
part of D securely attributable to syriac infinences, but otherwise 
apparently not seriously basic, and influenced from half the clause at verse. 
21 previously], at 





John 


xvi. 7. 


xvii. 11. 





BIN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 391 


Another very distinct “ pair.” 

Instead of eav yap un ateAPw,o0 mapaxkdytos ove eXevceETas 
tpos vuas, BLY (33?) LauraA™ Chr, but these alone, sub- 
stitute ov un Xn for ov« eXevcerat, reading : 

€ay yap pn aTEeROw, o TapaxdnTos ov pH EXON mpos vEAS. 
Comment is unnecessary, but Hort swallows it whole (without 
marginal alternative, Soden only has it in his margin), while 
the Oxford edition of 1910 disallows it and returns to ov« 
€deucetat (with Soden™) but without a word in the margin or 
in Sovter’s notes. [The mass and Paris” are with the 
Revisers against Hort. Both Cyrils and Did Thdt are observed 
to improvise with ov wy epyerar, as some versions. } 

(Obs. the Ms 33 in verse 10 substituting wopevouas for vrayw 
alone with i” v*? Sod™ Chrt because of wopev@m in verse 7 
above, and the secret of ‘accommodation ” is laid very bare.) 


. See in ‘ Causes of Corruption,’ by Burgon, pp. 105/106. 
2. apes (pro ape) BD*l W-H™ Sod™ [non minn vid} epe N. 


See under ‘‘Change of Tense” for Latin evidence, but the idea. 
of B (with copt) is apparently again a question of harmonising. 
pairs or triplets and by a change of a letter (not writing a:pyoet) 
he makes a harmony of manu S€ ow opuas vyas, cau Yapnoetat 
Ugwr 7 Kapdia, Kat THY Xap UuwY ovdes apet ad’ UnaY. 
Kabas xa nets (pro cabws npes) B*MSUYI Sod min™ 
Sq gat vg syr hier 1/2 arm Ath [against Cyril]. The group is 
feeble and savours very much of improvement: “wa wow & 
cafes (+«at) ques.” NDW[Soden misquotes W on the other 
side]¥ and all the rest and the versions oppose B and this 
small company. (Syr sin with a bce ff r omits the whole of 
the last clause in verse 11 from w SeSwxas por to the end), I 
should like to know however upon what principles Hort and 
Soden refuse to take up this addition of «a: by B supported by 
five other uncials and Ath. 

W 33 ald et Sod*-5 add after ev xaOws ness tev eopev. (fer 
X Sod®** 213). 


2, See under “Coptic.” In order to support for ous, approxi- 


mately the same authorities add «ae before epurata. This is 
a much less difficult place to adjudicate than many, and seems 
to me to be very clear manipulation. In verse 11 we have: 
Tatep ayle THPNTOY avTOUS EV TW OVOLATL TOV @ debuxas pot. 
But in verse 12: ote nunv pet avtwy (ev tw KoTpw) eyo eTNpovV 
avtous ev T@ OvopaTtt gov ods Sebwxas por epudata, Kas 
ovdeas e£ avtwrv atwXrerTo... 








t Tischendorf neglects Scrivener’s codices and Chrysostom (but see Matthaci 


ad lce,). 











392 
John 


xvii, 21. 


22. 


xviii. 30. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


The latter is manipulated to...eyw etypovy avTous ev Tw 
ovoparte @ dedwxas pot Kat egvaata...by BCLW 7 () 33 64 
Paris” sah arm syr hier Cyr W-H [nil mg] non Soden. As to 
boh while giving ¢ it does not have xas before epvdafa, while 
d Hil, who hold ofs, add «at before epuragfa. The presence 
of Cyr in the combination shows that it remained an Alez- 
andrian tradition until his time. & hesitatingly writes: ore 
NuNY peT avTwY eyw ETNPOYyY avTOUS Ev T@ OvOLATE & gov Kat 


edudaccor xas ovdis ef avtav atodeto... N* omits o Sedaxas 


pot with syr sin; N° inserts, with oe for w (as Evan 7 and sah 
oh), and modifies nat efvraccov [Male Sod de d r cum N*] 
to xa: ebudaga retaining xas. 

The Syriacs and Latins grouped are against this interpreta- 
tion in verse 12, In verse 11 syr sin and the majority of t¢ 
omit the last clause involving w SeSwxas pot wa wow ev kabes 
nets. 
misrevn (pro misrevon) N*BC*W Sod*[non al.] Clem Eus 
Tisch W-H, against the rest and against Orig Ath Cyr and 
Sodt*, See under “Change of Tense.” This is probably 
“improvement” to agree with the form of miorevovtey in 
verse 20. If so, it is another rather forced pair. motevon 
is undoubtedly right. 
wa wow & Kabws ques & 80 (X)BC*DLW 1 [non fam] 33 
397 (Paris”) d ¢ syr hier sin aeth Clem Hipp Eus 2/4 Cyr 2/3 © 
W-H & Sod txt suppressing eopev. This may possibly be 
basic, but N and Paris’ are observed to manipulate a little 
further, which is suspicious. N and Paris” write: wa wow 
& xa$os ques suppressing the final é as well as eopev, while 
Chr suppresses the whole clause. 

ai adds xat before ques and P'“ omits ques. cinverts : sicut 
sumus nos unum. [Soden neglects this testimony]. The 
Coptics retain the verb. All this points to a rather equivocal 
position for the minority, although eoyev may be an addition. 
Observe that the testimony of Hus and Cyr is on both sides. 

T fear that we must once more accuse B of an “improving” 
tendency here. Among the following varieties B has only the 
countenance of his friend L and of W, yet Hort and Soden 
follow suit. : 
et fn WU ouTOS Kaxov Tomoas N* of. syr sah pers|e mali aliquid 
nyo RAKOY TOLwY BLYYWW-HdeSod} . faciens 
tye ng KAKO TOLWY C*¥ 33 Evst 63 a (r) male faciens 
1999 9999 RAKOTTOLOS AN Gr?! Sod? et Paris” Latt pl 
(malefactor) verss Hus Chr Cyr. 

It does not look favourable for B when Cyr is against him 

in such a place, and when even % changes the tense (rather 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 393 
io happily here although Tisch abandons N* and goes with 
NBLW and W-H Sod), and when Ath improvises (xaxovpyos), 
and Nonnus paraphrases unnecessarily with e yn env Tedecas 
adatov xaxov. It shows a little too much consideration of the 
passage. None of Matthaei’s or Scrivener’s or Soden's cursives 
know anything of any variation nor does Paris” so close to XB 


hereabouts. : 
xviii. 84. avo geavtov ou TouTo Reyes BC*LNY Paris” Cyr 
W-H & Sod txt (Chr awe cavtov...) 
QO GEavTOV TOUTO ElTTas & 


All the rest including W and all reported cursives (but 
Paris”) have af eavrov... followed by Tischendorf. 

Surely, surely, if ad eavrov were the revision, a trace of azo 
ceavrov would remain in some cursives. § has an excuse for 
revising because his text (with D*” and some cursives) lacks 
ov, but with BCLNY and Cyr it seems to be a case of pure 
revision. 

xix, 26. We have been quite a while without an example of a “ pair.” 
But the opportunity offers and B avails itself of it. We read 
Inaous ovy (or be) wr TAY UNTEpaA Kat TOY paONTHY TapEeTTWTA 
ov TyaTma heyeL TN PNTPL AUTOV.... 

Here NBLXWY 1 22 138 2° Paris”? Sod'™°*#" 5 e arm Cyr 
W-H & Sod suppress avrov against all others and against 
Origen. The reason seems to be because in the first part of 
the verse sSwy thy pyntepa is without avrov, therefore avtov 
should be absent on the second occasion. For a similar 
reason the latins a ¢ » and most versions (but absolutely no 
Greeks but 2 and Sod now first adduced by von Soden) 
supply avrov after tv pntepa in the first place. My critics 
will please observe the advent of 2 and Sod and the 
company which they keep. 

29. +rov (ante ofous secund.) BLWY Sod 1 33 138 2° and 
N° with the Georgian version, but these only followed by IV-H 
and Soden. It seems to be a sheer “‘improvement” eim- 
phasising the matter upon the second mention of the vinegar: 
“* axevos exeito ofovs peaTov * oTOYYOV ovv peaTov TOU ofovs... 
It is in reality another question of the consideration given to 
“pairs.” (Soden says “xae 1 tov H™,” but Schmidthe's 
edition says nothing of the kind, printing peotov ofous without 
vou and without any xaz). 

xx. 6 init. epyerat ovv at Stpov Ietpos tBLX et NIPW 33 56- 

58-61 397 Sod vg IV-H ut Sod trt. 





t Wordsworth omits B*, and does not record that r (which he mentions) reads 
exactly with the coptics aufem et and not ergo et as vg®%, 








. 894 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


John 2 a. 
(@) and arm substitute «a: for ovv, but none add exactly as 


the above (except og®“) besides the sah and boh versions 
which have epyetar Se ease as 7 alone of the Latins, so that 
T cannot place it exactly under “Coptic” or ‘‘Coptic and 
Latin.”. It seems to be undoubtedly an “improving” 
accretion in common with sah boh and could not have been 
dropped by all the others if basic. Syr pesk' and sin (now 
available again) have Se without a: as the latin fragment v.f 
The coptics preserve this Ae but add aug (bok), auwwe 
ose (sah). This gwd, and not oft simply, implies improve- 
ment to the narrative and equates etiam ipse as to Peter. 
Hence it is an accretion in sak boh which overflowed to 
- BLXW. The others ignore it, including YW and Paris” and 

Cyril (Pers and Georg have no copula at all), 

xx. 13. I cannot let this little matter pass without remark. The text 
runs with great simplicity :— 
“nae Neyouctw autTn Exewwou * yuval, Te KNaLELS ; Eyer auTOLS * OTL 
npay Tov Kupioy pov Kat ov« o1ba Tov eOnKav avtov.” 

Two slight changes of the same nature are here made respectively 
by & and B, 

N elides the initial xaz, alone of Greeks (with 397 [Sod°]) and against 
the weight of evidence, but in the coptic manner with sah syr sin pers 
and some Old Latins. Not so B. 

B, on the other hand, alone of Greeks, aDDS kat as an introduction 
before the woman’s reply, reading «as Neyer avtots . ort npav.... 

This seems a small matter, but it is really of the utmost importance. 
At such a place an examination of the versions is immensely profitable. 
First then how do the Latins stand? None add any copula in the second 
place, but the reviser of g shows what he thought about it by improvising 
“quae dizit” alone of Latins for dicit ets, actually suppressing avtors as 
Eus™ when reporting the matter ‘4 Se exwev” supplying an autem. Has 
B then no support from sah bok syr? No, none at all. They do not 
provide a copula, and pers beautifully says e:ev without autos. When 
our investigation reaches aeth and arab they follow B’s intuition and add 
with him a xa, Turn now to georg and the later saz and they also 
find it necessary to add something. But they add Tunc. 

‘When Dean Burgon characterised 8 and B as “‘ two false witnesses ” 
was he so very far wrong? Is the evidence at this place not absolutely 
conclusive of the non-neutral character of their thinking process? 

[In this conversation much more may be learned. Observe N in 
verses 15 and 16 again.] 


t Correct von Soden astorandy. rreads autem et but v only autem. aerate 
substitute v for r in Soden's apparatus under “ om. xa:'.” 


John 
xx, 19. 


xxi. 11, 


21. 


23. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 395 


otov noav ot padytar (—cuvnypevr) N*ABDIWA* 44* 95 
122* 246* k*™ o'* Sod'*3 1° [ambo in Sinai] a? d g pw dim 
gat aur vgg 1/2 Vigil Taps syr pesh sin et W-H. 

This aggregation may look strong, but we miss the usual 
supporting cursives for such an omission, if basic. We miss 
LX among the Greek uncials, while syr hier sah boh aeth 
arm georg slav (hiat goth) all have ovynypevoe with Eus Cyr" 
and beef fg r 6 of the Latins. 

The followers of Hort are requested to place ovvyyuevor in 
the margin. Soden retains it in his text! 

It is not as if B were not given to “improvement.” In the 
very next verse we have another “ pair”: 


. Kat Tas Xetpas Kat Thy wrevpav by BA apparently quite 


alone, where the first «a: has been inserted to '‘rhyme” with 
xat thy wrevpav. No others do it, not W nor L nor V nor a 
single minuscule, nor can Soden produce one new witness 
among all his sympathetic codices. No Latins do it, no other 
version reflects it, yet Horé calmly includes it in his text with- 
out a syllable in the margin to indicate that only two uss out 
of thousands read thus. The Oxford edition of 1910 rejects it 
without comment. But if ever anything were deliberate and 
not “ unconscious ” (as Hort says) on the part of B, this small 
matter is an example of deliberation. And observe that Horé 
rejected the reading of B above at xx. 13. He takes the xa 
here because A (alone) supports. Can foolishness go further? 
aveBy B etc., or eveBn NLWY, +ovv NBCLNXII?WYW Sod" 
L[non fam] 22 33 91 138 239 2 Laurat! Sod') 4 M49 p yg 
boh sah syr hier Cyr (and c vg” slav tunc adscendit, syr pesh 
sin aeth et adscendit). 

This is against D and the other twelve uncials plus IT’, all 
the other minn, all the Latins except c, arm georg and pers, 
and looks very much like an addition to improve the sense. 
Notwithstanding the imposing array for +ovv I challenge it, 
and when the supporting testimony is analysed it proves to be 
weak, and not homogeneous. 
toutoy + ovv NBCD [non Sod] 33 it vg boh sah Orig Anast 

Cyr W-H & [Sod]. 

(However in various endeavours elsewhere, in between these 
places, to be graphic in this chapter, the matter of copulas is 
manipulated by many of our documents, and it would not be 
wise to be didactic as to any of the numerous changes which 
follow. ] 
ove evrev Se (pro xat ove ertev) NBCW 33 Sod®™ ¢ bok 10/20 
sah 2/3 syr pesh hier sin verss al. alig. Orig Cyr Chr™ 9 
W-H [non Sod] (Om. coput. sah 1/3 boh 10/20 [hos negl. Sod.]). 








396 


John 


xxi. 24. 


iv, 46. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


This is distinctly what one would expect. ‘This word then 
went abroad among the brethren that that disciple would not 
die; bué Jesus did not say...” 

whereas the majority of Greeks, with the Latins, arm, and 
aeth [but the latter is negligible] say xas ove ermev, which 
seems far less natural. But that is just the point. If Se 
were basic, who would ever have thought of changing to 
xat? Clearly, we end as we began, with a charge against 
the B group—whatever its subsidiary company may be—of 
manipulation of the record. The translator of pers saw so 
clearly how tbe sentence should run, to convey its full sense, 
that, going beyond the syriac, he says: “haud (tamen) quod 
non moriturus esset, dixit (Jesus), SED si velim...” bringing 
the sed in very late. As Malan translates: “ though he did 
not say that he may not die, but if I wish...” 

I do not fear to be accused of straining a point (and observe 
that Tischendorf and Soden reject the SBCW group here in 
verse 23), because in the very next verse B doctors the 
record by adding «as (see under “‘ Solecisms ”’) and generally 
shows 8 desire in this chapter to emphasise matters. Because 
Cyril joms B and the new Ms W (the complete group for é 
kat paptupev is now BW Cyr [Soden adds Op]) it does not. 
mend matters. The very same point appealed to a small 
minority of late Latins, who add ille and write ‘‘ Hic est 
discipulus ile qui testimonium....” 


Change without Improvement. 


ev kava (pro es thy kavav) BN soli.t Is this neutral? Is 
it? I insist upon an answer, for it is either deliberate or the 
grossest kind of carelessness. It is not “ neutral” apparently 
for Hort and the Oxford edition and Soden cast it out of their 
texts, nor could they do otherwise. Well, then it fulfils the 
other alternative of rank carelessness; but what kind of care- 
lessness? Evidently from @ concurrent version. It is in the 
original Greek an instance of the accusative of motion after 
mrGev. The verse opens: 7A0ev ovy waduv e1s THY Kava. 
Kava being treated as indeclinable the Latins say in Cana, but 
the Coptics errana (to the Cana). NS however declines 
it and avoids any chance of difficulty by writing es ryv cavay 
(cf. some vgg). B, unless he was somnolent while looking 





t Soden reports 348 (his ™) for es xava (—ryv), and further adds in support of B for 
ey xava X® (his A‘) and Sod" the former at Sinai, the latter now at Athos, but both 
largely sharing version influence elsewhere, as does 348 most distinctly and a real 
adherent of the B family. 


John 


vi. 23, 


xiii. 18. 


B IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 397 


at the Coptic, must have written it in from the Latin, as 
probably N. At any rate it is not only at the opposite pole 
to a “neutral” reading, but it shows carelessness due to @ 
sight of a version, Many things have previously tended in 
this direction. Must I go further than this to prove my point ? 
The critics certainly cannot fall back here on a joint common 
Greek base being responsible for readings visible in B and 
Coptic, or B and Latin, as they are never tired of dinning into 
my ears, and trying to make me appear over-ingenious or 
foolish. If the said imaginary lost Greek base influenced B 
why do the editors not adopt the reading ? 

One word more. In verse 47 (following) B, with NCLT® 
and DW with frag gr-copt (graeco) Crum-Ken, 33 69 [non 
fam] 213 314 892 Sod'** [non Paris”] only of Greeks and a d ¢ 
ig foss Orig, writes kas npwra sine avrov with W-H Sod txt 
(against all the rest of the Greeks, the Syriacs, the Coptics 
and Aethiopic, which have avrov). Hence it was a Graeco- 
Latin which doubtless misled B in verse 46. 

In verse 50 again B with only NDW Sod’? 587! sah e dL 
vg Cyr W-H & Soden writes emctevcey without a copula, 
against all the rest «a: exter. and LT” 213 314 892 s* enor. 
Se. Although this style is Coptic, none but two boh codices 
suppress the copula here. It is again Latin or Sahidic 
influence. 

BNW only of uncials and 71 127 with ten other cursives and 
a dozen more of Soden add rns before Tifepiabos. It does not 
seem to be called for nor do Tischendorf or Hort or Soden 
insert the article. Why not? Is B’s ‘underlying Greek 
text” not basic here, supported as it is by NW and a score of 
cursives ? 

The whole spirit of the Gospels is lost on B and on his 
frequent consorts Cl. Here is a case. For: “add wa 7 
ypahn TAnpwhy* o Tpwyav pet e“ou Tov aptov emnpey (or 
emnpxev) em eve THY WTEpvay avtou ” of practically all authorities, 
BCL and four cursives (127* 249 b*" 892) t vg™ [against all 
Latins and Tert] aeth sah [non boh] Eus?™ [but not Eus*™] 
Cyre™ [but not Cyr] Origen ee [but against himself close 
by elsewhere] read pov tov aprtoy, apparently straining after 
the language of Psa. xl. 10 «as yap o avOpwros THs etpyvns wou 
ep ov edmica, o ecStwy aptovs Mov epeyahuvey em eve 
atepuouov. But our Lord did not say “as it is written” 
but “in order that the scripture might be fulfilled,” and if he 





t plus 218 (Sod) Sod?"0 "81 M48 fam CN (and Soden txt euov without per’, evidently an 


error for pou (see hig note “ per epou 1 pov etc.”}), 
per epou 1 po 


.898 " GODEX B: AND- ITS ALLIES. 


chose to utter prophetic words, or John wrote down a wording 
agreeing with the fulfilment of the prophecy; would not BCL 
Orig have done well to hold to it and not to turn up the 
Psalm for “control.” As a matter of fact B bungles another 
matter, for he (and he alone) writes eve for em eve in the second 
clause, against the language of the Psalm. I fear Origen is 
implicated in the first. misquotation, for he (once) is against 
himeelf (thrice) for yer exov' with: ND unc and WY all 
minuscules (but those named), and Paris’ i¢ vg Eust™ 
Chros Cyrt Thdé* and all versions but aeth sah. In the 
Latin, mecum panem- might easily have become meum panem 
with some, but it has not. Only vg (possibly vg*) have this, 
while q has mecum panem mewm as E* and four boh mss. ° 
I cannot enter this under Coptic, for bok so positively opposes 
sah which goes with BCL. It must remain a lamentable 
exhibition of a non-neutral text, which:-Hort has foisted on 
to us, printing the sentence in capital letters as a quotation, 
which. it is not (for it does not even say “that the scripture 
may be fulfilled which saith,” but merely “that the scripture 
may be fulfilled”), and failing to-see the beauty of the 
application of the words to its fulfilment. Hort has no 
marginal alternative and’ no note in ‘ Select Readings,’ but 
Souter does not feel perfectly -happy about his master’s 
wonderful methods here. While his Oxford edition of the 

’ . -R.V. keeps pov in the text it gives us not only per evov in 
the margin, but Souter jots down the evidence besides in his 
‘note. Will he please observe now that while 892 goes with 
B, which he forgot to note (covering the three mss by “al. 
pauc.”) that W and Paris” oppose, as well as Tertullian. And 
will Soden please to note that his ext “ enou” is a MS 
support. 

(The only acknortty to strive after verbal conformity to iis 
LXX is ¢, which has adampliauit = eveyadvvev for the exnpev 
or enpxev of the rest. This- Tischendort does not mention 
‘nor Soden.) 

In o case of this kind the jupporting cursives should be 
carefully examined. He should not say “min pauc” but 
specify them. Sometimes a mized band of cursives} join 
% or B for a reading in which some common change is judged 
desirable, or is the result of a common error, but this lot, 
127 249 892 b**, is not a common lot. In fact the only 


t This is another point which Soden does not appreciate, for he omits cursives 
reported by Mill, Wetstein and the older collators even when B has no other support but 
that of these. 





B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 399 


Joha 


semi-outsider is b*’, The other three have definite affiliations 
with the B stem and the B traditions.t They have weight 
merely as confirming that B or the prototype of B read thus. 

- They do not represent a separate line. 127 is a very critical 
codex (sometimes alone with Origen), 249 excessively so, and 
892 is about as close a late document as we can get to B. 
Soden’s added mss will also bear investigation. 

Observe next that when Hort prints this as a quotation in 
capitals, following the form of BCL, it does not yet agree 
with the LXX, the printed text of which (exactly as in B's 
own Old Testament volume) has aprovs wov and not ov tov 
aprov, so that it should not be dignified with capitals. 

Another point remains to be noted. The LXX quotation 
closes ‘ew exe mrepuouov’ aS against ‘er eue THY mTEpvay 
avtov. Where was 83 above? Absent from the B ranks. 
But here, with 69 [non fam] 71 248 253 259 7°* Sod‘ and 
Origen 1/4 Eus’™ it suppresses t9v before arepyay to get as 
near the O.T, quotation as it can. The testimony therefore of 
33 here is important against B in the previous matter. Finally 
the Chr codices vary much among themselves, some following 
the LXX for mrepucuov, showing how all turned up the 
passage for control. Yet none but BCL, those cursives named, 
aeth sah, one latin codex, Hort, Soden and the Oxford edition 
propose to mutilate the N.T. record. 

xvi. 18. Similarly B is implicated with all other Greeks (axovee: or 
axoven) in apparently changing the axover of NL [negl. Sod 
LI 33 Ath 1/2 Cyr 1/2 b el foss Ambr 1/2 slav goth saz; as 
Tisch says “offendebat axoves et propter Aadnoe mutandum 
videbatur.”’ One boh Ms and aeth georg have the past tense 
nxovoe, Which here properly ranks with the present as against 
the future. Of course it is possible to argue from a doctrinal 
point of view that the more authoritative present tense in 
speaking of the Third Person of the Trinity has been put in by 
NL 33, but no one of these Mss is given to this kind of thing, 
and it may well be basic, particularly as b supports. I have 
great confidence in b in cases of this kind.} Compare the 











+ Observe 127 at xiv. 26/27 + eyo with BL alone, and note 249 in countless places. 

t+ Observe in xvi. 18 the “ shorter text” in NDW fam 1 fam 18 al. pauc. and Paris 
ofi—é Aeyer with ba def syr hier arm sah georg, whereas B with the lonely company 
of 213 897 aeth omits r: Aade: at the end of the verse, which Hort proceeds to place in 
square brackets, leaving the previous o Aeye to stand. What kind of “ neutra is this 
with only these in support? The Oxford edition removes the square bracket and scouts 
the idea of B’s “ neutrality.” Another sunstroke of B, no doubt, Soden produces the 
two cursive witnesses named, viz. 218 and 397. Observe them elsewhere with B. But 
Soden does not remove ri Audet on their added authority, recognising that they are of 
one plumage. 








400 


John 


xix. 12, 


39. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


amplification in verse 15 dia tovro e:wov ott ex Tou epov 
rapBdves (corresponding to dxover) car dvayyeret vu 
by B and the mass. 

(N lacks all verse 15 from an error of homoioteleuton ; N° 
has Anpyeras and avaryyedret). 
expavyacav Aeyovtes (pro expavyafov rey. vel expafov dey.) 

+ BD" 33 181 157 249 435 604 al. alig. et Sod™" et a. 

Westcott and Hort adopt this change of tense although 
Aeyovtes follows, and they do it against the vast majority and 
against Cyr (expafor) and against Origen (expavyatov). Wiser 
far are the Revisers who recall expatov Aeyovres, and Soden _ 
with expavyafov Neyortes. , 

N has eAeyov for exp. Aeyoures and Paris” expavyafov without 
Aeyovres, and 71 expafov without Aeyovres, none apparently 
expavyacay without Aeyortes. 
euypa (pro peyya) N*BW soli (e malagmam). N* corrects 
this. It cannot be right, although Hort has to adopt it in his 
text. B then substitutes a roll for a mizture. (WithN and W 
the case is not quite the same; see below). And ¢ adopts a 
kind of half-way house with malagmam for mizturam. As to 
peypo it is iteelf an dak Aey. im the N.T.: edeypa does not 
occur at all, and forms of ekoow only twice (Heb. i. 12 crsZers, 
Rev. vi. 14 ettacopevor), A few Mss read opsypa, but Soden 
cannot find any additional testimony for eAsypya. 

Now, while B alone has gepwv edsypa, % and W have 
exov edeyya, This eyov is pure bohairic [against sah 
ACIEING = nveyxe as syr pesh and other versions]. How exer 
of boh (which has Ovseirssd, a8 sah ffowseTsed) came to 
be tacked on to edryya and replace depwv prypa of all other 
Greeks and all other versions would be a mystery if I had not 
already shown the extraordinary and hitherto unappreciated 
close inter-relationship of the versions with the Greek mss of 
Egypt. Incidentally this very exwv of NW boh (sold inter 
oman.) is ample proof that bok is as old as NW. They must 


. have got it from bok. Boh could not have got it from them 


not being in close enough sympathy in the neighbourhood to 
warrant any accusation that bok had used % or W in trans- — 
lating. And observe the exw (lit. cui est) is used by boh™" f 
and is basic. As to edsypa substituted for prypa by NW, 
taken in connection with eywy substituted for depay, it is clear 


‘that both N and W were using some critical helps. Possibly 


some early Egyptian commentary explained that peyya 


> 


+ Only the bohcatena® hae “and he brought” O°COP, ACNE as seahoma ACEINE. 





John 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 401 


involved a package of some kind and used the word edrypa. 
But edvyza must be wrong or it would have overflowed into 
the coptic. The coptic words corresponding to pryua (here 
transliterated plainly from the Greek) are quite different. 


Note. It has often been said that W-H have been unfairly accused 
of printing the readings of Balone. Yet here is a case in point. They 
print depav edrypa, which is only read by B. 


ii. 





Indeterminate. 


6. >ABiwar vdprar (pro vipa: UOwar) NBLXY 33 185 314 


Paris” Sod only of Greeks, plus arm? only of Versions, 
plus ¢ only of Latins and vgg aur W-H and Soden texts. 

This order of the ten Greeks igs opposed by all other 
Greeks and 892, by both Coptics, by the Syriac [Aiant syr cu 
sin], and by all Old Latins but c. 

It is very clearly a question here of a real “neutral’’ text 
for NB (since they are agreed and supported by the subsequent 
copyists LXV) or of a deliberate change, for a reason which I 
do not understand.t Malan makes his arm codex read with 
them, and it is the way the sazvon expresses it, but this is 
merely following vulgate order, which St. Jerome obtained 
from a codex similar to NB. The suspicious part is the 
solitary adherence of ¢ [D d are still missing] with which even 
the Aethiopic does not agree (= hydriae sex lapidiae), for ¢ 
has been tinged with much Egyptian revision. How is it that 
all the rest are opposed to these ten Greeks and ¢? 

Note that N with a e arm subsequently omits xetpeva:. 
This shows that the foundation of the arm text here is similar, 
as well as old. 


vi. 45. The textus receptus reads 0 axoveas and yabwy (as 0 axovaas 


Tapa Tov watpos Kat palwv epxerat mpos pe) in which it is 
supported by NABCKLTM Sod™ al. ¢ f ft vg Orig Cyr™, 
but opposed by o axovwy of the rest andabdeg q foss gat 
Hil etc. Who is right? Tert seems to show that he read 
axouvcas, for alluding (Praz) he says Omnem qui a patre 
AUDISSET ef DIDICISSET venire ad se. Tere it is true he reads 
didicisset into uaor, whereas padwy seems to imply a con- 
tinuance of action. 
It is a pretty place to try and settle. 











+. Observe that 71 348 omit Adware and 6° omits Achwar ef [neither mentioned by 


Tisch}. Does this cursive (so important often elsewhere), not mentioned here by Soden, 
perchance hold the original base ? 


t ris mutilated here, although Soden quotes it with ¢ ff. 


2D 


402 


John 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


xi. 54. I confess to the feeling of being on very tender ground here. 


In the final clause caxes Stet prev peta tov padnrav of most 
and D, with laét, NBL W only with 249 397 Paris" Sod" Nr Orig 
substitute € pecvev for Sietp:Bev. This is also clearly shared by 
sah boh (aeth?), using ACQYWITE here (as against a different ex- 
pression in iii. 22), although Tischendorf does not mention it. He 
remarks ‘‘ Serp:Bev vero practer hunc locum in N.T. non legitur 
nist Joh iti. 22 et passim in actis.” We have had d:erpeBev 
before then in St. John at iti. 22 in exactly the same kind of 
phrase: ‘‘xat exes SterpiBev peT avtwv Kar eBantiter,” but 
we have also had eyecvey several times (iv. 40 nae epenvev exer 
Suo0 nyepas, ii. 12 kat exet evetvay ov Todas nuepas, x. 40 nat 
evervey exet, and in this chapter at xi. 6 TOTE pEV EpelvEY EV w 
qv tore Svo npepas). 

The double argument can therefore be drawn, first that 
the mass of authorities borrowed S:ezpsBev from John iii. 22 
by way of improvement [but why should they want to im- 
prove here?], or secondly that NBLW recollected, preferred, 
or borrowed eyewev from the other passages cited. dserpeBev 
does not occur again in St. John, whereas pévw occurs many 
times (notably at xiv. 25 ravra Nedadnea vp Tap YyLY pevwr) 
and is a word whose parts occur over thirty times in St. 
John’s Gospel with a variety of subjects (of the Spirit at 
the Baptism, of the body of Jesus remaining on the cross, 
of the beloved disciple remaining till he came eéc.) besides 
being of frequent occurrence in St. John’s epistles. Therefore 
speaking in a Johannine way eyewev would be much more 
familiar to the ear than SietpiBev. As 249 joins the little 


* band for ezecvey, and was with them in other questionable 


changes in ch. xi., I incline to think that eye:vev is revision 


of the basic text, for what purpose it is difficult to say. 


Certainly Sverpifev is the proper antithesis to meprewate: at 
the beginning of the verse rather than the colourless eyecver. 
A solid consensus of syr and latin here for dcerpsBev opposes 
the few Greeks with copé for epewev, and Burkitt's canon here 
can be applied in favour of syr and lat, the more so in view 
of the rest of the bad record of those favouring epedvey. 
T have a feeling that evecvev is due to Origen’s restless activity. 
He quotes thrice, each time with NBLW eyecvey, just as, a 

little further on, at xi. 57, Origen™ with only NBIMW and 
eight cursives (so W-H ¢ Soden texts) countenances the 
substitution of evrodas for evrodny of all other Mss and all 
versions. NB Origen here mean to imply the giving of com- 
mands right and left to take our Lord, and were not satisfied 
with evroAqv. Lest I should be misunderstood in saying 


BIN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 403 
ar that I have a feeling about Origen deliberately making the 
other change, I would add that Chrysostom gives away the 
mental attitude involved, by confirming my views as to the 
second case, as he writes cat eSoxav wapayyedias [non cit. 
Sod], varying the word but expressing the plural. 

Westcott and Hort say nothing in ‘Notes on Select 
Readings’ about scerpsBev/evecveo—which surely is a key-note 
to revision on one side or the other—although in these notes 
on the very verse they discuss the locality of the place 
mentioned. Observe my remarks on xiv. 7 under “ Synonyms,” 
which throw a strong sidelight on the matter. 

[Another substitution occurs at xiv. 16, of the Paraclete, 
where N and B and LQX, but in differing positions, substitute 
3 for evn of most, but pevy here may have crept in from the 
péver used in verse 17 following}. 

xvi. 26. ex tov marpos BC'LXV?[Sod contra Lake}t 33 249 
Sod 10 fam KCN Binh W-H & Sod txt. 
mapa tov marpos = Nrellet YW? minnCyr (Chramo) (Cf. verss) 
(—efnAOov rapa tov matpos DW bd (e ff) ) Cp. verse 27 and 
the end e&nA@ov, reduplicated at the beginning of verse 28. 


B and Origen in Conflict. 


vi. 9.65 BAD*QGUAWY min® W-H & Soden, but Orig Cyr 6 
with N Sod” and the rest. 
50. avoOunoxyn B Eus solt ef W-H™. Orig amoOavy as all 
others (but VW amodnras, and teOvnkeras ClemTenioty , 
52. tv capa aytov BTA 892 ¢ but opposed by Orig and 
Sod*4 34 Gam 8) sah, boh aeth Cyr who read with the large 
arm syr it? Orig [ W-H tet] © majority ray capea. 

vii. 39. +aytov SeSopevov BX? (254) e g syr hier Origi** 1/3, but 
distinctly against Origester and Orig'* elsewhere, who with 
NKTIL Sod™* Cyr Hesych add nothing. (See under “ Con- 
flation ” for further remarks.) 

vili. 52, Oavarov ov un Sewpnon (pro ov wn yevanra: Bavarov) B 
213 Paris" Hust 32 ¢ (sax) contra mundum et contra Orig. 
See remarks under “ Improvement.” 

x. 8. adXoux B omn. (adda ove DX) but Orig thrice «ae ove with 
pers only and vg. Soden does not deign to notice this thrice 
repeated reading of Origen. Why not? Pers [not mentioned 








t IL have grave doubts as to Soden's correctness in such places as to ¥. Notice here 
in his upper notes that he adds D (1485) for ex rov rarpos whereas in the lower ones he 
admits that D with W omits the clause altogether! 


9n2 


404 


Jobn 


x. 


xi. 


xii. 
xill. 


XV. 


xvi. 


xvii. 


Xviil. 
xix. 


18. 
41. 


45. 


50. 


53. 


25. 


a1. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


by Tiscnendorf (never quoted by Soden)] is a most important 
witness, perhaps going back of syr sin here. 
nper NB soli et W-H tzt, but Orig with all the rest a:per. 
> eromnoev anuetoy ovde ev Orig with KLMXIE and WY 157 
and a few against onpeov errornoev ovdev of B and most. 
cat Oeacapevot § emoncey BC*D W-H“* € Sod™, but & 
Orig?'=res with the majority. 
ort oupdeper wa els avOpwros avobavy umep tov Xaov So NX? 
sah™ 252 Thdt Chr, as in xviii. 14, without vaw or nw; but 
BDLMAI add vyev after cuupepee with Orig", whereas 
Orig*Pt with Eustath and Cyr is for the addition of uc», 
as are ARGHIKSUAATIWY Sod mina” ¢ f g 1 etc. sah 
syr arm aeth and all other versions except the itala. As to 
‘W that Ms joins the latter company and Origen. 
For suveBovrevoavto Origen witnesses twice with the mass, 
and but once for eSovrevcavte of NBDW Sod Ath 
(Paris” reads cuveSovdevearto). 


. Ovyatep & mult et Orig, Buyarnp ~=B mult. 
. Origen is on both sides many times, but, as edited, has rapade 


against sapaso: of N*BD* soli cum W-H txt [nil mg]. 


. Origen 6/7 confirms N and ¢ vg Hier Tert for vepacdat with- 


out any addition. 


. +ort before ovy: tavtes BCL W 33 213 Sod** Cyr W-H & 


[Sod], but not Orig. 


. > upwreyo Bl pers (pro reyw up rell et Ath Orig’). At 


x. 7 where B does the same thing Orig is not available; at 
x. 1 Clem Cyr Chr Lucif and Orig'* oppose B. 


. -rote SDL 2° Paris’’ Sod&° see! syr sin boh 1/3 sah Cyr 


and Origen 3/7. When he does add he says erra. 


.easav 25] and Origen [Sod does not mention Origen], but 


ews ov NB and all except X = ews (—ov). 
(Origen’s looseness is seen at xiii. 19 where he has erav for 
oray once, and xiii. 27 etra for rote). 


. petn most and Eus Cyr, and eupewy Orig, but perp NBL 


218 Paris” W-H & Sod. 
epxevas (—aAAa) NBC*D*LXYH? and W I[non fam] 33 
69 [non fam] 218 Paris” Sod'** "° sah etc. (see under “ Coptic 
and Latin”) but against Orig Ath and Cyr, who have 
adha. : 
moteurn S*BC*W Clem Eus W-H, but micrevon all others 
and Orig Ath Cyr and Sod izt. 


. -ors NBADLNXIWY Sod but against Orig and Cyr. 
. expavyacay deyovres BD" min @ W-H, but Orig 


expavyatov rey. with W and many, and expafor Ney. Cyr and 
many. 





John | 


xix. 26, 


xx. 17. 


B IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. 405 


—avrov after tn pytpe NBLXWY 1 22 138 Paris” Sod" 
be Cyr W-H «& Sod tzt but none of the others nor N nor 
Origen. 


. > Tqv TRevpav avrou Orig'S and 69-346 258 817 348 397 Evst 


53 bis Paris” t only of Greeks with lat syr, against avtou thy 
aheupay all other Greeks, Coptic and (Hus). 


. ereOn nearly all and Origen, but NBW Paris” Laura4™ and 


Cyr qv teBerpevos. 
> en antou pov Bel Tert et verss alig but Origen*@ with 
all others and a host of supporting Patristic testimony yn 
Hou amtov. 


. twos bis B (sol inter gr) a ef syr Cypr Orig Eus Aug 


Pacian Auct™, but against the other Latins, against all the 
Greeks [but B] and against Origen™t Bas Cyr" Novat ete. 


3. —ovtos 3 250 eT? y* al.? and Origen with Chr 1/2 Cyr 1/2, 


. while NBCDW 1 33 2” latt syr copt place ouros before o Acyes, 


and the rest after it. Origen therefore is the most “ neutral ” 
of the three groups. 











+t Tisch omits 258 and Evst 58. Paris’’ is new testimony. 
¢ Unless Tisch has greatly erred. Soden quotes Qp as if Origen’s Greek on the side 
of B where Orig" only seems to belong. 





406 


CHAPTER X. 


“The real text of the Sacred Writers does not now, since the originals have been 
730 long lost, lie in any us or edition, but is dispersed in them all.”—Bentley. 


“No authority has an unvarying value, no authority is ever homogeneous.”— 
Westcott (St. John's Gospel,’ p. xc.). . 


EPILOGUE. 





Tue foregoing pages leave much unsaid. Many grave passages 
“have not passed under review, because they have often been dealt with 
elsewhere. But the composite picture left seems absolutely opposed to 
a superior claim first for the shorter text; secondly for the neutral and 
unprejudiced text; thirdly for a text free from local preferences of 
grammar and syntactical structure. On the contrary, Hort's description 
of the ms B is contradicted again and again, and I have found him follow- 
ing B with additions more often than with subtractions. But enough 
has perhaps been said about all these matters. 

What I wish to emphasise in this Epilogue is that the assumption 
(upon which the text of W-H is absolutely and indubitably founded), 
viz. that a conjunction of NBL must be right, carries with it the corollary 
that everything else—twenty uncials and the versions combined—is wrong 
if opposing. It seems like an unnecessary truism to state this at all. 
But the point involved is a grave one. It lies at the root of the whole 
‘question of textual criticism, of textual principles, and of the next 
revision of the Greek and English texts. To suppose that these twenty 
uncials and versions are wrong, when opposed to NBL, presupposes 
a most extraordinary thing. It predicates no less a theory than that 
they all proceed from one erroneous revision of the basic text of NBL, 
which is manifestly and absolutely impossible when one consulis the 

. documents themselves. The reverse is what I claim. The reverse is 
what I am here contending for. And the reverse is 80 much easier to 
understand. The aberration of NBL from the mass involves but one 
recension, and the character of that recension J have tried to indicate 
in the foregoing pages. Where NBL try to “improve,” it must be 
shown that the other side, that the great mass of our other witnesses 


EPILOGUE. 407 


have been deliberately revised by some one to give us a poorer Greek 
text. On the contrary, the simple testimony of these shows that the 
recension they represent was not striving after classical Greek expressions. 
Again, the other theory presupposes an introduction of pleonasms, which 
NBL try to remove. This carries veritable foolishness on the face of it. 
When NBL make an addition to improve the sense, it involves the 
other theory, the assumption that the mass deliberately (one and all) cut 
out these additions. 

The foregoing pages have been wrung from me by the persistent 
refusal of the critics to see that an Antioch “revision” such as they 
suppose would have been a crazy one indeed to remove all the ‘‘ good” 
things in NS and/or B; and by their failure to appreciate that Greek- 
Egypt was the hot-bed of revision in the third century, continuing 
throughout the fourth, while poor ‘‘ Antioch ” pursued the even tenour of 
its way. 

I have therefore tried to sketch, in a military way, the strength and 
the weakness of certain strategic positions, in the hope that light may 
break in on the whole position of modern criticism, so resolutely 
defended for 100 years by repeated obiter dicta but by very little else. 

I had not intended at first to extend the enquiry so as to cover 
the history of N separately. But this will be found completely done 
(if not quite exhaustively down to every minute detail) in Part II. 
This study has involved over a hundred thousand checking references 
and the work had to be done very rapidly so as not to lose the threads 
and cross-threads. Personally, I have been more than repaid for the 
six months of hard work expended upon it, and everything I have ever 
contended for has found ample confirmation in the pictures painted.t 

But all these minute matters, handled in both Part I. as to B and 
Part II. as to N ef rell, only lead up to the larger questions still sub 
judice as to the omissions at Luke xxii. 43/44 and Luke xxiii. 34 which 
TI have not discussed at all. 

The minute examination however of the idiosyncracies of N and B, 
and the sides which they take in combination otherwise, form the 
necessary foundations for any deductions which are to be drawn in certain 
other weighty matters. 


Luke xxii. 43/44. 


The omission of the account of the bloody sweat from Luke xxii. 43/44 
can safely be attributed to the transfer maiks in early Lectionaries (or 
I should say Gospel books marked as Lectionaries) which misled some 





{ I have amalgamated some of Tischendort's notes, thus, I hope, making matters 
much clearer in many places. Soden carries the separation of readings to such a point 
that it is almost impossible to regroup the passages, 


408 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


scribes whose copies were already covered with textual notes+ if not 
attributab!e to the influence of the docetists of Alexandria. 

To this day Burkitt speaks of St. Luke xxii. 43/44 (the bloody sweat) 
as among “the Greater Interpolations” [‘ The Old Latin and the Itala,’ 
p. 47]. The facts are all against this being considered as an Interpolation 
at all. But recently the Bishop of Ely (J.T.S. Jan. 1912, pp. 278/285) 
has provided a fresh argument for the reception of these verses as being 
entirely genuine, part of the record, and in the handwriting of St. Luke.t 
The Bishop has argued at length for xpqvys yevopevos (Acts i. 18), as to 
Judas, being a medical term employed by St. Luke, meaning that “he 
became swollen up” as opposed to the general translation hitherto in 
vogue, and his view appears largely justified by the facts which he 
adduces. If this be the case then «al yevduevos év dyovia stands 
in the same position as @ medical term in Luke xxii. 44. 

This expression medically for “ becoming ” is prevalent in St. Luke, 
just as we say “He is becoming betier (or worse),” “he is becoming 
weaker,” “he is becoming feverish,” ‘‘ he is becoming deaf,” “he is 
becoming mad,” “he is becoming unlike himself,” ‘“‘he is becoming 
nervous,” “‘he is becoming crotchety,” ‘‘he is becoming saner,” “ he is 
becoming tired,” “he is becoming anxious,” “he is becoming stupid,” 
“the is becoming hungry ” [¢f. Act x. 10 éyévero 8% mpéameivos wai Acre 
yevoaoGa: of Peter], ‘he is becoming more free from pain,” “he is 
becoming cruel,” etc. etc. 

Examine St. Luke's diction for a parallel to yevopevos ev dywvia 
besides the well known one in Acts xii. 23 «al yevopevos cxwAneoSpatos, 
and we are struck at once in: 

Acts xii. 11, of St. Peter, by the expression: «al 6 Tlérpos yevd pevos 
é€v éavt® “coming to himself,” and in:. 

Acts xvi. 29, of the Jailer: cai évrpowos yevdpevos, all three 
expressions involving a mental attitude. Note Acts xxii. 17 yeveoOa: 
pe ev exotacet. 

This is also singularly illustrated in Acts xv. 25 yevopuévors 
éuoOvpadoy, of the Apostles and elders of the Church being mentally 
“in accord.” 

The peculiarity of St. Luke’s use of éyévero is well illustrated at 
Luke xvi. 22 of the death of the beggar in the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus: éyévero 6é dvo@avety tiv mrwyev, as it were “finally came 
to the point of death” from exhaustion, whereas the rich man’s death 
(xvi. 22) is dismissed with dméOave 8€ xai 6 mAovatOs. 

t For these obeli, indicative of various matters, were very liable to confusion. See 
p. 804 note, 

¢ I am indebted to Professor Rendel Harris for pointing this out to me. 
Dr. Harris in his pleasant and modest manner accepts the Bishop's interpretation of 
mpyvhs yevdpevos against his own previous view and applies it to yevopevos év dywria as 
another Lucan medical expression. Since this was written Dr. Harris has published a 
short article on the subject in the ‘ American Journal of Theology ' for Oct. 1918, 





EPILOGUE. LUKE xxii. 43/44. 409 


Again, in Acts xxviii. 8 we read: éyévero 68 trav watépa Tod TomAiov 
mupetots xat ducevrepia cuveyduevov xataxcicOat. Here again this 
“becoming” distinctly employed in connection with the medical terms 
“fever” and‘ dysentery.” Observe that in Luke xxii. 44 «al yevomevos 
év dywvia is followed by éyéveto Sé 6 Spas adtod woet OpduBor atpatos 
xataBaivortes ert thy yiy.t 

St. Luke uses this of our Lord’s age (ii. 42) wal dre éyévero érav 
8dexa, “and when he reached the age of twelve.” 

Even of Judas the traitor, St. Luke says (vi. 16) ds nal éyévero 
mpodotns “who became a traitor,” whereas Mark (iii. 19) = ds «ai 
mapéowxey abrov, and Matthew (x. 4) = 6 xai mapadots adrév. 

Another apt Lucan illustration (Luke vi. 36) is the graphic yiveoGe 
oixtippoves...xadws xat o matyp tudv oixtippov éati. “ Become ye 
merciful... even as your Father is merciful.” This involves the whole 
Lucan vocabulary as to this medical term of becoming, whereas in 
St. Matthew (v. 48) (no exact parallel to this passage in the synoptics) 
the less careful expression dominant is gcece ody tpeis Téretoe as O 
matip tmav 4 obpdos tédetos éorev, missing St. Luke’s beautiful 
antithesis. Similarly St. Luke at xii. 40 says «ai bpets (ody) yiveoOe 
€rouot, which is also the expression in St. Matthew. 

Another mental process is involved at Luke xv. 10 oftw Aéyw viv 
yivetas yapa (or xapa yiverat) evariov tav dyyéAwv tod Geod... And 
of. Act viii. 8 xai éyévero yapa peyddn ev 19 médet éxeivy. 

The opposite} is indicated at Luke xviii. 23, of the rich ruler: 
6 && dxovoas taita wepidumos éyéverto,§ while St. Mark’s account 
runs: 6 && otuyvdcas éxi TH AOyp awArAOev AUTOvpEVOs, and St. 
Matthew's: dxavcas S& 6 veavicxos GmqNOEv AUT OUpeErvos. 

Again, where another parallel is involved in the matter of the 
talents, St. Luke says (xix. 17) eb aya0e Sobre * Ott ev eAaxioTp mia TOs 
éyévov,... whereas St. Matthew xxv. in both verses 21 and 23 says: 
ed SavAc.. .ewi Gdiya hs WeaToOs. 

Therefore at Luke xx. 14, where C fam 1 substitute ora: % 
xdnpovonia for yévntat % «Anpovouia they show an ignorance of 
St. Luke’s Greek and have merely followed syr. 








-¢ Cf. Hippocristic: pads wovdds dxpyres yevdpevos iyalvorte vécow onjeaives. 
Hippocr¥rit; gy8oain ipas éyévero cai maduy éreOeppave i wadw Bpds. AristotDe part animal ; 
On 8é row paca cvvé8y aipurdder meperrduari 81a xaxe$iav, rod ply odparos buddos xai 
pavod yivopevon, tot dé aipatos éLuypavOévros &:' dreyiav, dduvarovans ris ev rois prcBios 
beppornros méacew, 8° édcyérnta, And again: (aipatos) ¢Evypawopévov 8€ Alav verotow 
yiveras yap iyopoedés xai deoppovrat bros dove fq twés thicay aiparddy idpara. 

t Observe below the contrast between qofos eyev. and gidovernia eyev. in Luke 
and Acts. 

§ NBL and Paris” only say ¢yevj6y, probably an “improvement.” It is followed 
by Soden however (without new witness) as well as by W-H. 


Tn this connection note St. John’s (xvi. 20) ddd’ 4 Avan ipav eis xapav yergoeras. 


410 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


And at Luke xx. 33 where we read & rf obv dvagrdcet tivos attav 
yivetas yu}, SDGLI min™ show themselves in error by reading forae 
there, as St. Matthew xxii. 28 and St. Mark xii, 23. 

Yet another parallel emphasises the matter: Luke xxii. 26 we read 
ipeis 58 ody obras * GANS peibov ev inv yevécOw ds 6 vedrepos, whereas 
St. Matt. (xx. 26/27) and St. Mark (x. 43/44) writing more amply apply 
yevécOar to peyas, but efvas both to dudeovas and Soddos. 

Once more, we can point to a very exceptional passage in Luke 
xxiii. 24 as to Pilate: 6 5¢ [Wtdtos éxéxpwe yevéa Oar 7d alrnya abrav, 
again involving a mental process and not very easy to translate. A.V. 
has: “And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required,” 
R.V.: “And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be 
done.” The Lucan phraseology covering the transaction is utterly 
different from that in Matt. xxvii. 24 26, or in Mark xv. 15, or in John 
xix. 1 4 6 8 12 14 15, and in the finale at 16. 

Another peculiar expression is at Luke xxiv. 22 adda cal yuvaixés 
tives €& jaw eértnoay tyas yevopevat opOpwal emi 7d pvnciov. Quite 
different at Mark xvi. 1 xal...gpyovrat eal 7d pvijpa, or Matt. xxviii. 1 
prev... -Cewphoar tov rapov, or John xx. 1 gpyerat...eis Td pynuetov. 
(The exact Lucan parallel to these other passages is Luke xxiv. 1 #AGov 
én) rd priya.) : 

For the rest observe carefully the following : 


Luke 
xxiv. 15. nal éeyéveto ev 7d dusreiv abrots of the disciples going to 
Emmaus. 
51. «al éyéveto ev Ta edAoyeiv avtov of the ascension. 
Act 


RXV. 36, eDOvuoe 58 yevopuevor 
xv. 39. éyévero 5¢ mapokvepos 
xix, 28. yevopevos Apes Ovpod 
(xiv. 5. as 82 éyévero dpm Tov eOvav... 
vi. 1. éyévera yoyyuapes vav “EXAquictav.. 
xix. 23. éyévero 5¢ xata tov Katpov éxeivoy tdpaxos ove ddtyos Teph tis 
odot ) 


xxiv. 5. éupdBov 88 yevouévov adrav 
37. wad EupoBor yevouevor 


x. 4. &uhoBos yevouevos 
1.19, ix. 42, xix. 17 yrworor éyévero 
xxvii. 42. Boudry éyévero 
xv. 7. morris 8¢ cvlyricews yevondons 
xxi. 40. aorrjjs 5é ovyiis yevouerns 
xxili, 7. éyévero ordows Trav haptic. 
: 9. éyvero 58 kpavyh weyddn 
10. words 88 yevouévns ordcews 





EPILOGUE. LUKE xxii. 43/44. . dl 


Then contrast Luke i. 65 cal éyéveto él wavras po Bos 
and Act li. 43 éyévero 8¢ racy uy GoBos 
v. 511 éyévero PbBos péyas 
with Luke xxii. 24 éyévero 5¢ cab pidovernia ev avtois to tis 
abrav Soxel eivar peifov 


All this has reference to mental processes. Add: 
Luke 


xxiii. 19. Sates fv 8a ordow Twa yevonéevany ev TH WOreEt 

(the other accounts differ) 

Act 
xi. 19. dard ris OAdews THs yevowerns 
Luke 
vi. 48. wAnyuvpas 88 yevouerns 
iv. 25. éydvero Arpés péyas 
xv. 14. éyévero Aupds loxupds (or ioxupa) 
Note Act xxvi. 19 Baoihed “Aypinna ov« éyevopny drreOijs again of 
the mental process; and, of time involved : 
Act 
xx. 16. Expive yap 6 Wadnos (of. Luc xxiii. 24) wapardeboat rv “Edecov, 
Srws wy yéevntatavTa@ xXpovorpiBijoa ev rH 'Acia. 

As to the proportionate use of yivouat and its parts in the Four 
Gospels and Acts, note that it is used approximately 125 times in St. 
Luke, and about 110 times in Acts, as against about 70 in St. Matthew, 
not quite 50 in St. Mark, and about 45 in St. John. 


As regards the use by the others covering a mental process the 


occasions seem to be limited to the following : 
St. Matthew 2 ‘ F ; 
x. 16. yiverBe ody dpdmpor... | Cf. Rom. xii. 16 uh yiverOe ppdvepor 


xxiv. 44. yiveoOe Grouzor trap’ éautois 
vill. 18. @s émiatevoas yevnOjtw cot 
ix. 29. cara thy misty bya yernO nto dpiv 
xv. 28, peyddy cov 4 wiatis * yevnOnTw cor ds Bérers 
xxi. 21. dav éynte riot... .yevioerat 


vi. 26. «ab mepiruros yevopevos 6 Bactrets 


xx. 27. ph yivov amietos 

+ And as a semi-medical term: 
Matt ssf N38 a ‘ , +. * , if. Ea 
KxVili. 4, wal éyevovto @aet vexpoi (or Kal éyevnOnzav ws vexpot) 
Mark x * if * me ia 
ix. 26. xat éyéveto dcel vexpos 
Joho 2 ay . 

v. 6. Géras byins yevdrPar ; 

9, evOéws eyéveto byes 
14. Be dyens yéyovas 
ix. 39. «al of BXérovtes Tupdol yévwrtat. 





t Cf. Rom, vii. 18 rd ody dyabdy tuol yéyove (or ¢yévero) Oavaros ; 


412 + CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


As to the Epistles, notice 

Ronn. xi. 34. tig yap Ew voiv Kupiov; 4 ris cdpBovdos abtod éyévero; 
1 Cor. xiv. 25. ra xpunrd tijs xapdias avrod favepa yiverac 

and perhaps as a semi-medical term : 
Phil. ii. 7. & dpoidpare avOpamev yevopevos 
‘1 Cor. ii. 3, wai éyd & dobevela cal dv pdBo Kat & tpdy@ TAKS 
éyevduny mpos dyads “ 
2Tim. iii. 11. ...7o0is Szaypois rots wabjpyacw old por éyévero ev 
*Avrioyeia ev 'Ixovip ev Adatpors. 

I have been at the pains to exhibit thus fully St. Luke’s partiality ti 
the use of éyévero and yevopeves in connection with wat yevopuevos ev dyovlg 
for this phrase in xxii. 44 is a link of undesigned coincidence with his 
language elsewhere. 

. Other medical writers seem to prefer dywriey or aywvicas. Thus, 
Aristotle: &4 ti of dyaut@vres iSpotar tos mddas, 75 b& Tpdcwmon dv 
++ Ste dyovia... 8:0 nal dbyprioct ta wpdcwTa ol ayovimrtes..- 
motodat yap TovTO of dyavla@yres... 

And Theophrastus® °°" G7. of dymvidvres Tos wodas Spat TH 
88 mpécwrov ob .. Kal dyovsdutes $8 ob 5A PdBov Toita mdoxovaw, 
@DAa Sa 1d pGdrov exOeppalvecOar... 

And GalenPros ex Puls xiynois qricody nal maBos Yuxixay dpyo0&ray 
} poBnOdvrav  dywvicdvTav.... 

So that a forger would have written at the opening of verse 44 
probably xai dywuidy or nal dywvidoas instead of xal yevdpevos év dywvia. 

Further, note that St. Luke’s dzoyvew in verse 43 in the transitive 
sense (dp0n 58 alte dyyedos dw’ ovpavod évicytwv avrov) is confined to 
himself and Hippocrates (6 5é ypévos Tatra évurxvces wdyta). 

Also note that Aristotle, in speaking of bloody sweats, uses yiveras ; 
and that St. Luke’s expression in verse 44 of xatafaivorres of the 
drops of blood agrees absolutely with Hippocrates’ language repeated 
often on such subjects (see Hobart, ‘Med. Language of St. Luke’ 
pp. 80/84). 


Luke xxiii, 34, 


The second passage, as to the omission of the first Word from the 
Cross, is in a different class. And I protest most earnestly against . 
the obiter dictum of C. H. Turner: ¢ 

“Lk. xxiii. 34 the first Saying from the Cross is 
not part of the genuine text of St. Luke.” 

It is cruelly misleading the younger generation to state the matter 
in this offhand, not to say light-hearted way. 





+ J.2.S. January 1913, p. 167, note 1. 


EPILOGUE, LUKE xxiii. 34. 413 


t Because BDT'WN* 38 435 597 and Paris” @ d b** sah boh 1/2 syr 
sin Cyr omit our Lord’s prayer for his murderers, Turner makes this 
deliberate statement, which merely revives the decision of an Alex- 
andrian school which flourished some time between 200 and 450 a.v. 
After Cyril of Alexandria the Church decided that the Alexandrian 
school was wrong, and it had rectified the matter before the time of 
Oecumenius.t Because Hort, basing himself on a wrong foundation, 
printed a text without this “Father forgive them for they know not 
what they do,” Turner would assure his world through the ‘Journal of 
Theological Studies’ that the ‘‘ genuine text” is without it. 

It is quite unfair to render a decision or to claim a decision in this 
matter when the witnesses upon whom the judges rely are still under 
indictment for false witness in a multitude of other matters. I have 
put B in the dock now and accused him definitely and legally of 
false testimony on hundreds of counts. Jet those who accept Hort's 
teaching get an intelligent jury to acquit B on all these counts before 
we can pay any attention to a claim for that ms to be heard as an 
authoritative witness when in a very decided minority. I wished to 
put my latest researches in this matter of Luke xxiii. 34 before the 
readers of a Theological Journal, but I was informed that if I thought 
that I could teach its readers anything which Hort, Swete and Turner 
had not taught them I was very much mistaken. Thus the Editors con- 
fessed that the matter was prejudged and that new evidence (which was 
what I offered upon this and upon another point) did not interest the 
critics. This surely is nothing short of a riot of pride and self-confidence. 

As to the support which B now occasionally finds in the new ms W, 
it is to be remembered that W also supports % alone in equally important 





t Add Sod060 and Sodé371, I think this is the full evidence to date for omission, Soden 
still cites & as if 6* omitted, whereas he should know and probably does know that 
Buchanan discovered in 6* the prayer itself, and that it was 6** who had suppressed it. 
Further 5* seems to give a very early and beautiful form of that Divine appeal, for 6 
alone omits yap, saying : 

“ Pater dimitte illis! Nesciunt quid faciant,” instead of : 

“Sdrep des avrois, ob yap of8acw ri nootow.” 

Soden" has: v= 

“Tdrep des abrois ri rowtaw" (—ov yap odacww), but otherwise the documents are 
agreed as to the regular form. Only A and syr hier® omit Idrep. 

Const, has 8 rowiow for ri wowtew. Some Fathers (with pers) apes abrois ry 
cuaptiay Tavryy or ras duaprias abray, but retain yap before ofdaci. 

Jacobs ig reported by Hust Heeetive ag: rapaxdAw xipte O€e marep des attois’ ob yap 
oidact ri mo.ovow. 

} Oecumenius’ date is now fixed definitely circa 600 a.p. from his full commentary 
on the Apocalypse in the Messina us No. 99. Von Gebhardt planned an edition of this 
but his death frustrated it. I have been instrumental in supplying Dr. F. Diekamp 
with photographs of the ms, and he will shortly publish an edition of it. In this 
Oecumenius, while using text of the Apocalypse thoroughly Alexandrian, explains in 
his commentary that although Cyril disallowed Luke xxiii. 84 yet in his day the verse 
was authoritatively transmitted as genuine. See my article in the ‘ American Journal of 
Philology’ for Oct. 1913. 





414 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


maiters, ¢.g. at John ix. 38/39 WN and } (J, only, omit o 8 e¢7 
miaTEvw Kuplé Kat Mpogexuvncey avTw Kat extev o tnoovs. The support 
of b is very important here. Our Lord’s speech in NW 8 is thus 
uninterrupted : (87) ewev avtw o Inaous Kat ewpaxas avtov Kat o adov 
HET Gov exelvos eat (39) els Kptua Eyw ELg TOV KOgpOY TovTOY nor... 
Therefore, as Hort said, & and B go apart a long way back, and neither 
of them is neutral, 

Enough has been said, I think, to justify my contention that B is 
not “ neutral.” 

I do not pursue the matter beyond the Gospels in all its detail, 
although many of the same features are visible in the Epistles, chiefly 
because, pending Mr. Horner’s and Mr. White's labours on the Coptic and 
the Latin respectively, my materials are not complete, nor have we a com- 
plete “‘ Old Syriac,” but we can illustrate the same points, as is done beyond. 

One word more here asto W. This new witness is going to take a high 
place among our Gospel codices and rank with D to control 8 and B. 

I would warn the public against a feature connected with this. 

When the critics who will sit in judgment on me find a place 
where W agrees with B, as at Luke xxiii. 34, they will exult and say: 
“There! You see, Hort is vindicated. W agrees with his omission 
which was based on X*BD sah (boh).” And they, being more con- 
vinced than ever themselves, will seek to convince you. But, be not 
deceived! This is merely an Egyptian excision involving W_ here 
(for observe that the only new witness lately to hand is yet another 
Egyptian codex T'). W is a weapon just as sharp to cut their theories 
and their readings as to support them. 

When, for instance, the critics will say to you that é¢' duds by NB 892 
Sod" W-H™ for “ mpds tude” in Matt. x. 13 is supported by W, and 
therefore poor Hoskier is wasting his time talking of “pairs” in this 
cennection and seeking to convince you that NBW were “ improving,” 
you, benevolent reader, being an independent observer, should look 
further, and you will then see that W does noé support 8 immediately 
thereafter at x. 15 for +7 before youoppwy, nor does it support B at 
x. 16 for es peoov instead of év pera. 

In fact-W generally goes against 8 and B much more than with 
them, and when it is for them the same reasons geuerally apply of 
revision of W in Egypt which caused these readings, but which did 
not extend to the other more radical ones. 


Hesychius and Origen. 


Whether Dr. von Soden and Professor Sanders are justified in 
adopting ‘‘Hesychian”’ as the true name for the Egyptian recension, or 
whether Origen is the more responsible for it, cannot be determined with 


EPILOGUE, AS TO DEAN BURGON, 415 


accuracy. In some respects however “ Hesychian”’ is a misnomer as 
we have no data to go by, whereas Origen’s writings give us data, and 
the cursive mss 33 and 127 confirm the fact that Origen altered texts, 
for these two MSS sometimes agree alone with Origen against NB and the 
rest of the Egyptian group. 


As to Dean Burgon. 


In closing let me say that Burgon’s position remains absolutely 
unshaken.t He did not contend for acezptance of the “ Textus 
Receptus,” as has so often been scurrilously stated. He maintained 
that NB had been tampered with and revised and proved it in his 
‘Causes of Corruption.’ He sought the truth wherever it might be 
recovered and did not stop at Origen’s time. The material discovered 
since his day has not shaken his position at all. We seek the truth 
among all our witnesses, with unnecessary subservience to no one 
document or congeries of documents, deriving patently from a single 
recension. Nearly all revision appears to centre in Egypt, and to 
suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian 
documents is unsound and unscientific, for we must presuppose not only 
“ Syrian” revision but a most foolish revision which did away with 
these “improvements” of the Egyptians and Alexandrians, or which 
destroyed the “ neutral’ text without rhyme or reason. Have I made 
myself clear ? 

What Dean Bargon was chiefly concerned abont was the lack of 
a scientific basis for our textual criticism. It is absolutely necessary to 
grasp this fact for a proper understanding of the whole matter. 

A scientific basis can only be obtained after we have made ourselves 
masters of a scientific knowledge of the real history of transmission, and 
of the interaction of the versions upon each other and of the versions 
upon the Greek texts. 

It is impossible to “ revise’ or compile a text from documents about 
which we have known so little. Every new document published helps to 
‘ghed light on the ones already known. Few as have been the new 
editions of Greek documents, we have already been able to learn a good 
deal from them. Much more can be learned if we will extend our 
examination. It is useless to cry for more light from history, or to 
deptore the lack of more data than we have got from the historical 
writings. It is also useless to sit down and say, like some critics, that 


+ Upon two matters we must revise his position. His critics refuse to be 
influenced by any array of Patristic testimony against B, so that we must convict B, 
as I have done, in another way. Secondly, Burgon did not correctly estimate Codex D. 
Notwithstanding all the curious harmonies in this 3 ite base is profoundly ancient and 
important. The Latin ws @ must ia future be considered much more carefully than 
heretofore, 


416 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


as history is silent on certain points we can never know more concerning 
these matters unless further historical documents are brought to light. 
Existing Sacred Manuscripts teem with information if we will only dig 
below the surface. 

It is now 25 years since Dean Burgon passed away, and I ask myself 
what progress his opponents have made. 

The answer is that after 25 years they have discovered some flaws 
in the Hort textual theory and have partially dethroned B from the 
paramount position it occupied in the Hort text. 

There are farther steps to be taken in this process, if I mistake not, 
and I hope that what I have written will tend further to clear the 
ground for a more intelligent view of the situation. The weight assigned 
by Burgon to Patristic testimony has been disallowed, but his indictment 
of B as a false witness is abundantly proved. 


Codex B outside the Gospels. 


When we pass from the Gospels to the region of the Acts and the 
Epistles we subside at once into smoother waters, yet the self-same 
features as to B are to be observed there also. It would perhaps be 
tedious, although quite profitable, to follow B over all this ground. For. 
the sake of brevity I will confine the examination to the Epistles of St. 
James and of 1 Peter, the latter so largely attested by sub-apostolic 
Fathers. We find, as I say, the same features. 


As to “ forms" and “ synonyms” we find at: 


James 


Ti. 26. yadevwr (pro yadtvayoyovr) B only, and have to assume, if B 
be “neutral,” that all others, even the closest supporters of B, 
use & longer synonym. The word recurs at Jas. iii. 2, yadcva- 
yoynoat, but nowhere else in the N.T. Observe however that 
Polycarp (Phil. 5) uses yadevaryeryourres. 

iv. 9. werarparynre (pro peractpadyte) BP ac Thpyl W-H™. 

v. 4. apuortepnpevos (pro arrearepnpevos) NB* soli et W-H [nil 
in mg !} 

i. 7. xpucou rov amrodAvpevou B only, for xypuctov tov 
a7voAd., against all the rest and against Clem Orig. This 
tendency towards “‘ finessing”” remains with B to the last. 

ii. 8. amsorouvres (pro ameouvres) Bonly. (Cf. lat). 

iii. 13. e (pro ear) B 3101 (non W-H], against the rest and 
against Clem Dam. | (Soden only mentions B). 

ibid. yevoirGe (pro yernaGe) —_B only 





+ In this very verse we find the Alexandrian preference for eauvrev over avrov 
(referred to elsewhere) exhibited by BP o and 9 few of Soden’s codices. 


1 Peter, 
1. 


2 Peter | 


James | 


EPILOGUE. CODEX B OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS. 417 


. epivovre (pro exovTe xptvac) BC*? 69 137 a‘* and more of 


Soden. This is adopted by W-H without marginal alternative. 
The Revisers refuse to follow. ‘ 


. ahXotpremioxKotres NB d** and more of Soden and 
W-H Sod txt (for adXorpio- or adrAorpiog eriaxaras) 

. ato nuav (pro ad’ nov) BY and one cursive only 
{non W-H]. 


When we look further for Coptic sympathy, we find it at: 


&, S:or: yeyparrat (ters) ayacecesOe B81 70 syr copt | W-H] 


12. 


i. 10. 


(‘ex ingenio linguae’ as Tisch says) 
Consult also : 


. GAR exavatas PIO AAN Ex. NBY 68 Sod™ W-H. 
. omov (av) NB sah W-H [nil mg). 


If we seek Latin sympathy, we find much of it: 


. —7 (ante Son) B only 
. 7 (ante pos) BP tninn® W-H. 


. WtaTOUS BA vg Auct\” W-H against mectevovtas 


rell”', micrevoavtas alig, et mestevoartes Polyc. 


. —Kabapas BA Sod™® og Gild W-H [nil mg}. 
. ~ot (ante avdpes) B only [non W-H] 

. ~tov (ante Geov) N*BY and W-H 

. otrBavov (pro gtdovavov) 'B only 


For further polyglot sympathy, consult: 


. py eveotterOas Tals Mpocevyats (pro yy EvkoTT. TAS Tpogevxas) 


B ouly (W-H marg) with syr lat copt. 


. apaptiats (pro ayaptias) BN W-H tzt with aeth vg syr. 


If we seek change of tense, it jamps to meet us at: 


evontevovtes (pro enorrevoavres) NBC alig (vg Cypr) W-H 
[nil mg] against the rest and against Clem. [Observe at iii. 2 
eromtevovtes by N* only (Soden now adds some carsives.)} 


Or as to change of mood, note: 


TNPNGH...1TAccn N(A)BC Sod™ W-H against the minn, 
QE 


418 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Consult also, as to voice: 


1 Peter 


i. 8. ayadsate (pro ayaddacbe)  BC* Sod Orig W-H, against 
rell omn Polye Clem Cyr Thpyl in the phrase : “ év ove cSovres 
ayatrate eis ov aptt BY opwyres motevovres Se ayaddtacbe Yapa 
avexdarnro cat Sedofacpern,” where ayadXaTe has apparently 
been substituted as present indicative or present imperative 
active to harmonise with ayamarte and opwyrtes and tictevovtes, 
as against aya\\acGe as present indicative or subjunctive or 
imperative of the middle voice. Origen is implicated here 
against the other strong Patristic testimony. 


For another case of Origenistic influence, observe : 
_1 Peter 


vy. 8. —rwa BY Sod" only with Orig and W-H tzt, against the 
: rest, Orig himself and many Fathers. 


Choice exercised by W-H as to the B readings. 


The choices of Hort when B is alone are quite curious. He 
follows above, and ate ; 


tiv. 19. tas yuyas (- — ava) B only and W-H tzt [Soden adds 
nothing], but refuses, “to follow lote of other peculiarities 
of B, as: . te ia 
ii, 4. -ov B* Sod fF (an “improvement” ? 
. against Mss and versions) 
iii, 4. +7a (ante ry\uxavta)' B only (‘Improvement ”) 
v.14. —rov xuptov B only, which might possibly be 
- “neutral” [yet more probably to be considered an amendment. 
Cf. Acts v. 41 to ‘suffer for the name”] which W-H only 
include in square brackets. 


. 1. -Kat Biuvnas B* only with Sod” 
ii. 1. govovs (pro ¢Oovevs)’ B only with Sod" 
6. -em avte . B only 
24. vpwy (pro npwv) . _B Sod*4 (W-H mg) against the rest 
es and Polyc. 
25. —nre yap B only and g. 
iii. 18. —tw Aco B only 


t Observe here against all the rest ras Yuxas avrev as N plur, or ras Yuyxas eavrey 
as some minn, or ras cavrey Wuyas in the coptic manner with 5 81 and Athanasius. 


EPILOGUE, CODEX B OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS. 419 


Not even in a doctrinal matter do W-H follow B at: 


1 Peter 
i. 11. mvevpa (—ypicrov) B only with Athanasius according to 


Soden (but Xpiorov is not omitted in the Benedictine edition 
of 1698) (against all and Ignat). 

But if B is right at 1 Peter iv. 19, v. 8, why not in these 
other places ? 


Further, we can show you here even (cramped as we are by our 
self-imposed limitations) harmony and accommodation to 
the LXX on the part of B. For, observe: 

1 Peter 


li. 6. axpoyaveatov post exrextov BC 3] Sod™'4 copt arm Barn Cyr 
W-H = order of LXX against our other New Testament 
witnesses which place it before exXexrov. 

ibid. —er avrw 3B (which W-H refuse to follow) is against the 
rest, and against Barn ex avrov, and Eus Cyr ets avrov. 
Again possibly from his text of the LXX. 
iv. 18. 0 de aceBys B* 187 Sod™s[W-H]. Cf. DXX. 


A matter of order further concerns the Latin: 
1 Poter 
iii. 4. >novytov nas mpacws (pro wpa, eat novy.) Bonly with mq vg 
Aug Ambr and W-H izt. 
But in adopting this did not Hort see that he was using 
version support and that it was not the “ neutral” text? 
These few words must suffice here to indicate that the general 
character of the B recension remains the same outside the Gospels as 
inside. The same Gesire for individuality at the expense of truth, the 
same ideas of finessing, the same ideas of harmony, occasional bold 
excisions, and distinct version sympathy which is clearly non-neutral, 
_against Barnabas, Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria. 


Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Polycarp, Justin, opposed to B: 


Even as to the bold excision at 1 Peter i. 11 as to the spirit of Christ 
dwelling in the prophets of old, observe that B doubtless opposes the 
copy of the scriptures in Ignatius’ library [this name is not mentioned 
with Did Ath Cyr™* and Cyr4!** by Tischendorf nor indeed in Jacobsen’s 
edition of Ignatius] for Ign™ says (ad Magnesianos § viii.) oi yap Dedrato: 
tmpopirat kata Xpiotov ‘Incotv Efycav., Aid tour Kai edtaryOnoay, 
évrvedpero: bd Ths YXapetos adrod, els TA wANpopopyOhvae rods 


242 





420 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


arebotvtas... Here von Soden now adds Athanasius to B for omission 
of Xpiorov. If this be so as to Ath it is a wonderful commentary upon 
the junction of B and Alezandria. (In the Benedictine edition of 1698 * 
of Ath. Xpiorov is found.) 

Again when we consult Clement of Rome (1. 34) we find that he 
quotes the passage in 1 Cor. ii. 9 as ‘‘ Adyer rap * dpdarpos ov« elder, xal 
ods odK Hxoucer, Kal = kapsiay dvOpdmov obK aveBn, 8 bea Hroipacey Tois 
tmopévovagey abrov.’ 

While ABC agree as to the ova of Clem™ for a of the rest, they have, 
like the other Mss, dyardow and not tmouévovow. Had B exhibited 
vmopevovew we might have thought indeed that the conjunction of B and 

. Clem® indicated a “ neutral” text. 

In the reference to this passage in Polycarp™™ the matter is as 
follows : 

Tips ofBarpov yap elyov duyciy 76 alsviov cal pndémote cBevvipevor - 
wip, xal tols ris xapdias bpOaduois dvéBrerov t4 Thpotpeva tots 
bropeivaciy ayaa, & obte ots ixovcer, obte bfOarpds ev, obte eri 
xapdiav dvOpérov dvé8n (leaving out the last clause here, as in Clem® 
11, 11) éxelvois 8e treSeixvuro brs tod Kupiou, ofmep uneérs dvOpwrot adn’ 
Hon dyyedo: joav. The passage continues: ‘Oyoiws S¢ wal ets rd Onpla 
xplévres bw émetvan Sewas Kaddces, xipucas pev broorpevvipevor val 
@dXats woxirats Bacdvow... where it will be observed that the expression 
u7epevay finds a place. 

Similarly at 1 Cor. iv. 4 where the phrase d\n’ ox dv rotrT@ 





ded:ealwpaz is quoted by Clem®> as GAN’ od wapa rodTo Souanat we 


do not find that B agrees. 

Or at Hebr. i. 4 for tocovtw Kperrrov Clem® (1. 36) has tocovrw 
pettwv. Not so B, although B elides tw» before ayyedov with Clem™®, 

Or at Hebr. iii. 5 if B added Ocpanwv as does Clem®° after arioros as 
to Moses we might presuppose a common “neutral ” original. 

(Of course we have to make allowances for Clement’s fusion of 
different parts as in 1.36 Heb. viii. 1-3 is merged with Heb. iv. 15 
quite libere.) 

At Matt. x. 16 B finesses with ess pecov Xuewy for ev peow dvKov of 
the rest, undoubtedly because the words follow the verb of action 
dmocré\kw tyas. He does not do it in the parallel at Luke x. 3, but 
there D is found with pecov for ev pecw, A reference to Clem® (Epist. 
11, v.) would seem to show that hts copy of the Scriptures agreed with 
our general authorities against both B and D. Hence B and D are 
opposing the ‘‘ neutral” text instead of preserving it. 

Again, for ddieoc in 1 Cor. vi. 9 we find of erect oo in Ignatius 
(Eph. 16). There is no trace of this in B. 

At Ephes v. 25 where we read of dvdpes dyatare tas yuvaixas nabas 
nal 6 Xpiords Hydancev thy exxAnolay, we find the counterpart in Ignatius 
(ad Polye 5) but Ignatius substitutes tas cupBiovs for ras yuvaixas. No 





EARLIEST PATRISTIC TESTIMONY AT VARIANCE WITH B. 421 


trace in B. Further,if B, a3 Polycarp, read adov for Oavarov in Act ii. 24, 
we might infer a “neutral” text for B. But itis D and latin which 
agree with Polycarp as also Iren' Epiph Pseud-Ath Thdt and Fac. 

Again, Act xxi. 14 Polyc™™ has to GeAnyua tov Oeou yeverOw, which is 
the reading of D* [neglected by von Soden] and Tert 1/2, while most 
read with Tert 1/2 the same order ro GeAnyua Tou Kuptov yeverOw, but NABCE 
are furthest away with the order tov cupiou To OeAnua yeverbu. 

Again, B opposes Polycarp at 1Jo. iv. 3 omitting ev capxt eXndvOora, 
whereas Polycarp distinctly says: was yap 85 adv pa 6poroyh ‘Inaoiv 
Xpiorov év capi edyrvOévar, avtixpiotés eat. Notwithstanding this, 
W-H omit (without a word in the margin] and Soden brackets it in his 
text and does not say a word about Polycarp in his notes. 

As showing that Polycarp was really quoting 1 Jo. iv. 3 as it stood 
in his copy of the Epistle, be follows it by quoting part of 1 Jo. iv. 9 in 
the very next section (viii.) of his letter to the Philippians. 

Hermias, close to James iv. 7 “ dvricrnte (52) r& SsaBorw al devkerac 
ag’ tpév,” says: dav obv dytictis abtov vixnOels devéeras dad aod 
KaTnoxvppevos. 

Had we found caryoxvppevos in B we might certainly think we bad a 
separate relic of an ancient text, but such evidences are not forthcoming. 

Justin’, yeferring to Matt. vii. 15, says: elwe yap modAol 
eActcovrat émt ta dvopati pov, &EwOev evdedvuevor Sdppata mpoBatwn, 
Exadev Sé clot AbKoe dpTayes. 

If we found efwGev in B we might consider it “neutral” or basic, 
but we do not find it. For Justin repeats the full verse (after interposing 
1 Cor. xi. 18): mpocéyete dd tay WevdorpopynTav olives eXevcovtat Tpos 
buds EEwOer evdedvucvor Séppata mpoBdtwv éowbev Sé ciot AUKoL Gpmayes 
again using ¢fw@ev. In both cases Justin uses evdedupévar Séppata 
wpoBdtav for the usual ev évdvpacww rpoBdtav. 

Notice that Justin seems to be quoting from his copy of the 
Scriptures and not entirely from memory, for when he deals with 
Mark viii. 31, which he does twice at considerable intervals, he substitutes 
in both places nai otavpw@ijvat for kal droxravOjvar, The same remark 

applies to Justin’s twofold quotation of Mark viii. 11/12. 
, Also at Luke xi. 52 notice exere of Justin. If we found this 
{instead of npare, or expuate D 157 a c d syr cu sin diatess) we might 
then recognise it as a “neutral,” for Marcion and Tertullian appear to 
agree with Justin, and it is repeated by Ambrst Aug and Auct™*, 
although not exhibited by Tischendorf or Soden. 


“ Higher” and “ Lower” Criticism. 


Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the 
“lower criticism” had kept itself quite apart from so-called ‘higher 
criticism.” Since the publication of Hort’s text, however, and of that 








429 : CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the 
supposed results acquired by the “lower criticism” to bolster up their 
views. By a policy of indecision in the matter of the fundamental truths 
of the Christian religion—truths specifically set forth by its Founder,— 
and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter 
of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been 
shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free 
scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary 
or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices 
against the mischief wrought, have sat by in apathy or have wilfully 
fostered these heresies. Or, if not wilfully, they have assumed a faltering 
attitude which caused their own students to misinterpret their masters’ 
lessons. Thus we have the spectacle of Thompson and Lake saying to 
Sanday: “We learned that from you,” and Sanday retorting : ‘I never 
meant to teach you that.” 

A man like the Dean of Durham, not content with preaching Christ- 
mas sermons at Westminster attacking the Virgin-birth, and vapouring 
in the United States about the close atmosphere of theological seminaries 
which he would like to burn to the ground, has nowt decided to introduce 
the “ Revised Version ” officially into the lectern of the ancient cathedral 
of Durham. I am therefore correct in coupling these matters. 

Reiteration of Hort’s dicta by his followers is not proof. Let some- 
one take the dozen “Alexandrian ” readings of B which I have adduced — 
the existence of which in B was denied by Hort—and prove that they 
are in no wise Alexandrian. Then we can discuss the matter further. 
Mr. Horner asked me why I had neglected Athanasius’ testimony in 
my volume upon the date of the Bohairic version. I told him, first 
because the editions of Athanasius were unsatisfactory, and secondly 
because the matter of Athanasius and Alexandria belonged as much or 
more to B as to &. 

Let somebody explain how B comes to oppose the sub-apostolic 
Fathers, deliberately in places, if we are to accept Hort’s assurance about 
B being “ neutral.” Until that is done, let us away with “ dicta” and 
go by proof. 


Further Test of a Neutral Text. © 


ARISTIDES. 


The previous exhibit has carried us up toa certain point, but the 
study would not be complete without a few words more as to what 
would really constitute a “ neutral” text in B or NS. 

t “ Dean Hensley Henson, just promoted to Durham, has announced that the Revised 


Version of the Bible will in future be used in the Cathedral."—Public Opinion, 
April 4, 1918. 








EPILOGUE. AS TO ARISTIDES, THEODOTUS ETC. 423, 


And first, let us assume that B or & exhibited a foundation text 
approximating the quotations from or wording of such a document as the 
second-century Apology of Aristides, for the Greek of which see the 
Dean of Wells’ edition in ‘Texts and Studies,’ vol. i, No. 1. Were 
that the case, we should be compelled to look upon the matter very 
differently. If, for instance, at 2 Cor. ix. 7, we found aver:pOovest for 
(un) cE dvdyens we might well say that we had found a “neutral” text 
quite different from later ones, but such a thing is not found in & or B. 

Similarly if in Titus ii. 12 we should read in B dotws xai Sixaiws 
Sevres as Aristides (§ xv. 18)t instead of cwdpdves nal S:xatws Kal eboeBds 
Sjowpev we should certainly see a foundation text of the time of Aristides, 
but we do not find this. || 

The only result of such a comparison is the wonderment which it 
engenders in us that Christianity had already so filled men’s minds that, 
having read the Christian writings, as he says he had (mentioned in 
close connection with these passages), such language, close to but not - 
exactly scriptural, should issue from his mouth.f The picture from 
Aristides’ pen (or that of his chronicler) is one of the most beautiful in 
the world as a comment on the early Christian order and the execution 
by its votaries of the Master’s maxims and of the words of his apostles, 
and it goes far to explain the mental attitude of the apostolic and 
sub-apostolic Fathers and their circumlocutory quotations of New 
Testament Scripture. They were so steeped in the maxims and prac- 
tices of the cult that words flowed from their lips and their pens 
close to but not verbally exact as to Scriptural diction. They were 
permeated with the spirit of Christianity and ‘‘ the letter” was flexible in 
their hands. 


THEODOTUS (circa 190). 


To take a more positive example, after the above negative exhibition, 
let us consider other carly witnesses, and first as to Luke ix. 27, always a 
difficult text, and a “‘rock of offence” to many. We will ask what 
Theodotus read there. Tischendorf does not give his testimony under 
Luke. I extract it from Theodoti Eclogae (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. v. p. 186) 
where we read: - 


t Aristides (§xv. 12) is speaking of: “and he who has gives to him who has not 
without grudging.” He is referring to what he saw as the outcome of the Pauline 
maxim in 2 Cor. ix. 9 (Ps. cxii. 9), 

} The preaching of Peter (Clem Strom vi. 39) has oows cat Scxatws pavdavovres 
which is not as close to Titus as Aristides. 

{| Soden quotes Aristides’ order: “ weva.. .du. [471% Ky.” 

{ Had the apology been forged it is impossible to conceive that the late forger 
would not have incorporated actual phrases from the N.T. instead of the smoother 
picture conveyed by the Athenian philosopher. 


424 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


eloi tTwes tay de éxrnKdTav d (sic) ob wh yedocovtar Gavdrou fos dv 
Boot tov bedv rod dvOpdmon ev Sé6En. 

NB do not read thus, but D and Origen (rov Se Xovea:—) read Tov’ 
veov Tov avdpwrou epyoucvoy ev Ty S0kn avrouv. 

NB therefore oppose Origen here and D. Origen seems to be definite 
as to his reading being from Luke. True, we read wde for avrov [the 
regular text is eloiy ries Tov aU T Ob éxrnedrev of ov ph yetcwrtat Oavdrov 
ws dv wow thy Bacthelay tov Geod in Luke] and wée is read in 
Mati xvi, 28 (but Epiphan there avrov and Mark ix. 1), but eorwtwv or 
eo7wres is the regular reading in Matthew. 

In Matthew Origen reads epy. ev Tn Bactrera avtou (n) ev Ty Sokn 
autou bis, 

The regular text is (rov voy tov avOpwmov) epyopevov ev ty Bactdea 
aQuTou. 

N° 38 113 245 435 y* a copt Basil and Epiph™ read epy. ev ty S0Fn 
aurou, 

The Theodotus or Valentinian quotation therefore remains the 
shortest, being without epyouevov and without avrov fin, and conveying a 
very different sense.t 

Now elsewhere Origen has said that ‘“‘he knows of no others who 
have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and those of 
Valentinus,” but here he goes with the very text as upheld by the latter. 

Have we got the true text in &*B? We have certainly not re- 
established the Origenian reading. 


HERACLEONt (circa 170). 


Or consult John iy. 18 as to the woman of Samaria, where Heracleon 
would have it that she had had siz husbands instead of five. If B showed 
this we might say it was certainly a second-century text. 


' ATHENAGORAS (circa 175). 


Or, consult 2 Cor. v. 10 in connection with Athenagoras* 
Upon opening Tischendorf a wide difference of opinion is visible, not only 
among the Fathers, but between % and B, for & prefers ayaov etre 
¢avdov with Orig" while B writes aya@ov ere xaxov with Orig’, but 
Athenagoras says neither; be writes: 

&xagros kopionta: Sixaias & 86a Tod cepatos Expaker, cire dyaba 
eire Kad, 


¢.In all three synoptics the account of the Transfiguration immediately follows, 
So that Theodotus follows Ais quotation by eaying: «lor ody xai dxowpnbnoay 6, re wérpos 
xai idxwBos xal eodvyys, without the slightest discussion of a various reading, except what 
might possibly be inferred from ‘ kal rd evraida épOév ody’ Srrepoy rod ave x.7.d."" 

{ See beyond under the heading of “‘ Marcion "' tor further examples, 





EPILOGUE. AS TO ATHENAGORAS, THEOPHILUS ETC. 425 


This seems rather an interesting place, for Tischendorf does not refer 
to the addition here of S:xaiws by Athenag. It should be considered in 
connection with the variety of reading of ra 8a tov ceparos of the 
ordinary text and Clem Orig*? « * a], on the one hand, and ra dca 
ta cwpara on the other hand of d e fg vg goth arm Orig’ *™ al. 
and Zeno “ corporis sui merita.” 

(Athenag has a curious addition also in 1 Cor xv. 53 for which I 
know of no other authority: “dre Set (xara tov dréatodor) Td POapTxr 
totro Kai Stackedactov evdtcacba apOpaciav...”) 

In that very difficult text Matt v. 28,in which to know what was 
first written seems impossible, % and B divide. 

To émiOuphoas N* 236 Clem Orig Quaest™ Isid Tert® 

7d émiOupioat abriv §=B mult Thpl Orig*™ Eus Const Ps-Ath 

7d éribuphoa aitis NM al. Just Athenag Orig’™ 
and we find &° with Justin and Athenagoras (latt) but Ephr goes with X* 
and Clem. (Ephr quicumque aspicit et concupiscit tantum). (Athenagoras 
alone seems to use the perfect here pepoiyevxev for ¢uoiyeucer.) 

In this verse for the varieties BAcTwv, euBreTwv, Breas, eufrevras, 
oatts euPreret, os av eure, it is Theophilus, another second-century 
witness, who exhibits the simple dav. 

In Matt v. 44/45 on the other hand we find A thenagoras solely with 
latin [not d k] syriac Naass Clem™™ Tren and Tert, against NB and the 
Greeks, giving us a serious variation in verse 45 of dws yevnode tol tod 
marpas ipev rob ev obpavols, 85 Tay HAtov altod dvatéddet K.T.d. 

This 65 of Athenag replaces the dr of the’ Greeks and d k, and 
with Naass (both second-century witnesses) quite neutralises the witness 
of the rest. 

(Justina! has...cal tov #dtov abtod dvatédra . . . (libere), but 
Just? tov Fdsov adtod dvatédXovta.) 

Here the new editor von Soden springs a surprise on us; he makes 
a warranted and rather welcome, if bold and unusual departure from 
recent critical rales, by taking os into his text (to the exclusion of o7e) 
without Greek ms support for 6s. He says in his upper notes: “‘ore 
los I-H-K gg Mp lov Ta A@nv Ir KX Tert Xp Hil Luc Naaco Man sy 
pa? lat**, oars [és sot 48 Fiyo,” supplying Greek Ms witnesses for 
ootts but not os. Tertullian should be consulted in full however for he 
quotes in different ways, and once (contra Marcion 1/2) ‘‘pluentem...” 
exactly as Justin™?' avatedAovta. 


THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (circa 180). 
Theophilus? "lll. uv, after a quotation from Isaiah, adds from 
Matt v. 44/46: 1a 88 edayyédiov: dyardte, gyal, rods éxOpods tyadv, xal 
mpocetyeabe irép tay emnpeatavtav ipds * éav yap dyarrare tovs dyamavras 











426 , CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


bpas motov pucbév éxete; So far, observe,:.with: the general run of 
authorities, except. for ayamate: (instead of ayarneyte) with 3 some 
cursives Justin Athenag (as Luke), and zojov (for twa, 80 Athenag) with 
no others apparently, but compare Luke vi. 33 ofa as Evst 50 here in 
Matthew. 

But now he continues: tobro xal of Aba: kai.of redavae Tototat. 
The exact wording does not matter so much as that instead of the 
question of most: otye xal of reddvar obras. mrovobot, with Theophilus it 
assumes the form of a statement. 

Does B agree? No, B does not. But & ees: and. so does boh 
(that despised late bof!) and so does syr sin and practically syr cw, 
confirmed by Aphraates, and by the persian version as well. 

This form obtains in Luke vi. 83 «as o: apaptwdor To auto Totovaw, 
bat 8 does not draw from Luke since he uses the rest of the Matthaean 
terminology. Cf. Merx ad loc. pp. 107/119 and note what he says on 
p- 119. Merx neglects Theophilus but mentions Justin's xa yap ot mopvos 
tovto Totovct, also deliberately in the form of a statement, quite neglecting 
the ovys. Observe verse 47 in this connection whence ovy: probably 
ascended to the verse above. : 


NaASSENI (circa 200). 


Or take another early series of witnesses. In John x. 9 Naass™° are 
reported for “ sa route pat Neyer 0 enous * eyw ett n TUAN 7 adnOivy.” 
_ Had this attribute of vA been found in B we might think we had 
recovered something ancient. 


HIPPponytus. (circa 220). 


All this may be said to be very fragmentary evidence and open to 
* the objection of memorial quotations. 

Very well. Let us take another most interesting witness, viz. 
Hippolytus, who, like Lucifer, frequently quotes ai such length from 
both Old and New Testaments that it is absolutely beyond question that 
he was copying from his exemplar of the Scriptures. 

Hippolytus cites 1 Thess. iv. 18-17, 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, in full.t 





t It is a remarkable thing that Hippolytus has transmitted to us bis text of 
2 Thess, ii. 1-12, for these verses contain a detailed prophetic utterance by St. Paul 
concerning the history of the last times and of Christ's coming again to displace the 
lawless one (5 dvopos), and every word therefore is precious, down to the important 
néures or wines of verse 11. Hipp. maintains réupet, against NB, and has the support 
in another language of Cornelius (Pope a.p. 252) and of Victorin (a.p. 204), both writing 
at length on the subject, with mtttet. Similarly Victorin confirms rns apaprias of Hipp. 
with peecati in verse 8 where Cornelius does not quote. 





EPILOGUE, HIPPOLYTUS ALSO OPPOSED TO B. 427 


In the face of these quotations it is seen how loosely Turner argues 
when he says ‘‘ Hort was the last and perhaps the ablest of a long line of 
editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the eighteenth century, 
who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly in the end, threw over the 
LATER in favour of the EARLIER Greek MSS, and that issue will never have 
to be tried again.” 

But permit me to ask what Mr. Turner means by this light-hearted 
sentence. What does he mean by earlier and later Manuscripts? He 
cannot mean that Hippolytus’ manuscript was later than that of B? 
Yet, allow me to state that in these long passages, comprising twelve 
consecutive verses from one epistle and four from the other, Hippolytus’ 
early third-century mst is found generally on the side of what Turner 
would call the “later” mss. Has he ever consulted these important 
passages before writing down so positively statements which seem to 
me to be extremely misleading ? 

The matter, in detail, reduces itself to this: 

1 Thess. 
iv. 13. It is the cursives 31 and 73 with demid which omit adeAgoz 
as does Hipp. 
ibid. Hipp has KEXOLLNEVOV with DEFGKL plur and other 
Fathers, against the xo.uwperwy of SAB etc. 
ibid. Hipp(?) has os with N’D*FG 47 Orig Bas, against xaOws of 
N*B ell. 
14. Hipp has «a: o Geos with the mass, against o Geos «ac of B, 
now supported by other of Soden’s codices. 
17. Hipp has vepthevrouevoe with the mass, against B’s mepi- 
et uevot. 
ibid. Hipp has ovy Kuptw with the mass and Orig Eus, against B’s 
improvisation of ev Kupiw. 


it. 1. Hipp bas tov Kupsov qywv with the mass and Orig Tert, while 
B omits nev. 

3. Hipp has tys apaptias with ADEFGKUP minn” verss™ 
Orig 4/5 Orig Eus Chr Thdt Dam Iren™ Aug, against tys 
avouias of NB minn® Sod sah boh Orig 1/5 Tert (Ambr 
Amobrsé), 

The non-agreement of Origen’s quotations, with preponderance 
against NB, the adhesion of the Coptic versions, and the way in which 
Epiph turns it (0 vios ths avopias o avOpwros THs adsceias) taken in 
connection with avouas and avoyes in verses 7 and 8, all point to 
revision by NB, in which Hipp does not share. It is the usual 
‘Egyptian ” revision, for Latins and Syriac Goth and Aeth go with 
Hipp and the mass. 





t Or very likely a second-century text. 


428 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Note in verse 12 NB with Origen write adnXa evdoxncarres, instead of 


adn’ evdox., conforming to the usual Coptic or Egyptian mien: 
2 Thess, 
li.. 4, Hipp with FG Orig 5/7 Procop 1/2 has «at emarpopevos, 


against xaz vreparpopevos NB Orig 2/7 and most (X* omits). 
8. Hipp has o xvpies Incous with NAD*E*FGL"*P etc. and most 
Fathers, against o xcuptos of BD°E**KL* etc. 
10. Hipp has rns adimias with S°DEKLP al. pl, against adseas 
of N*ABFG al. pauc. Orig etc. 
ibid. Hipp has ev rots amoAAvpevors with N°D°EKL al. pl, against 
Tow amonn, of N*ABDFG (Orig is on both sides here, as 
so often). 
ll. Hipp has wepyres with N°D‘EKLP al. pl and other Fathers, 
against meymet of N*ABDTE" (Orig again divided). 

Thus, there is no such thing as “earlier” and “later” mss in 
this connection. Hippolytus’ ms was “early” enough to be of service 
here and to indicate that what Turner (and others) would designate the 
readings and leanings of “the later Mss” are not “later” at all, but 
go to the second century or at latest to the first quarter of the third 
century. The question is not at all of “earlier” or “later”? mss, but 
as to which of two readings current in the sécond century was the correct 
one. And as to this B evidently has no more to say than F. 

If we seek a “neutral” base in B, why does B not convey the 
“shorter " text with Hipp, as at 

1 Thess, iv. 16 where he omits apyayyedou, or 

2 Thess. ii.10 ,, 4, 3, €ts TO cwOqvar avTous ? 


Marcion. 


Let us enquire for a moment further in a region where Marcion’s 
testimony is available what the situation is there. We will take the first 
half of St. Luke’s Gospel so as not to be too wordy, ch. i.-xii. Let us 
see how far any proof offers of B being really “neutral.” Hereabouts 
also Clem4!*= and others offer valuable testimony. 

And first: ; 

If with NL at Luke ii. 44 B omitted «at tots yvworois, we might | call 
it “neutral,” because Ev Thom also omits. 

Or at ii. 16 if B omitted avros as do N* and Heracl (ex Clem‘). 
For observe that NB aeagree with Heracl (Clem) in the next verse, iii. 17, 
for S:axa0apa: instead of cat S:axalaprer. 

Or at iv. 19 where the quotation from Isaiah is cut short by Evst 34 
Origen and Athan (these not noticed by Soden) who omit amocreda: to 
Sextov, but not B. Had B cut this short, we could presuppose a 
shortened basic “neutral” form reproduced by B and added to by 
others, but it is not so. 


EPILOGUE. AS TO MARCION AND B. 429 


Or at v. 14 jin. where Epiph and Tert disagree as to Marcion’s text. 
Had B given us vv before es papruprov avrocs of most as Epiph*® (or 
iva, €tg paptuploy y vue tovro as D* and other Latins and Tert™™) we 
might consider this neutral. 

Or at v. 36 where Dial twice gives (em) twat tadaiw confirmed by 
Epiph™” to which agree MI 122 (elsewhere 122 goes with B) 301 
406 f" a b Tert™™,t but not B who has ems cvatiov wadatov with most. 
As to ews with the dative consult Winer, Eng. edition, pp. 488 seq. 

Or at vi. 9 where Text™" has ‘‘ Licetne sabbatis benefacere annon”’ 
for « efeoT tw caBBatw ayabovonca y Kxaxotwornoat, but B 
shows no sign of this 7 ov. 

Or at vi. 22 where Clem4'* has a shortened and graphic form, 
‘“‘paxapio. cate oTay ot avOpwror pionowow vpas, oTav adeopiowaou, oray 
exBadwot To ovopa vpav ws Tovnpoy evexa viov avOpwrov,” but not so B. 
There must be some basis for the omission of «at ovedicwour, for the 
order varies in others, Tert™° confirming overs. xaz exBar. while D latins 
and Cypr have exBad. xat overs. 

In other words the shortened form of text in B proves upon examina- 
tion to rest upon an insecure foundation, for the ‘‘ make-up ” of it includes 
a number of passages [see under “ Solecisms of B”] where B not only 
stands alone, but which W-H do not consider to represent the ‘‘ neutral ”’ 
text, whereas in the examples given above (for argument’s sake) the 
adhesion of B might have lent colour to the Hortian theory. 

Or if, for instance, B omitted in Luke vi. 48 reOeuercwto yap ewe TH 
metpav as 604 syr sin, for observe that in this same chapter: 

vi. 26. —oe watepes autwy is omitted by B 604 only with sah syr sin. 

So that what is possibly basic here may well be also exhibited by 604 
syr sin only at vi. 48. 

The whole of chapter vi. deserves fresh study. 

Observe vi. 31. —xat ves B 604 Paris” a ffl vg? Iren'™ 

34. -eote B 604 e aeth 

In ix. 20 observe —e revere evae 604 Dial (aeth) but not B. 

Similarly at i. 21 -—ev rw vaw by 604 with the important cursives 
108 142 al? Sod might with propriety be observed in B for the ‘‘ shorter 
text” if really an exceptionally ‘‘ neutral” text. Here syr sin is wanting. 
For at this place we note the usual change of order, a barometric pressure, 
indicative of addition to a basic shorter text: 

ev Tw Xpovitew ev Tw vaw avtoy = BLWEY 2” Paris” soli 
or avtoy ev tw vaw Nell (praeter min’ om. a tw vaw) 
and @ bd do not express avtov. 





t Tertullian's Latin (against Iren'™), “‘novwm additamentum inicit VETERI vEsTI- 
MENTO” agrees with Eptphanius’ Greek, which neither Tischendorf nor Soden have 
noticed, 








430 ‘ CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Similarly, as regards other cursives. Observe 


uk 
= i. 44. —ev ayadMase’ by 33 but not B 


xii. 12. —e avrn ty wpa by 33 and Origen but not Bo 
xviii. 34. ro pay (—rovro) D fam 1 25 157 29% 7#! coupled with syr cu 
and sin, sah 1/7 and boh?! and arm, but not B. 


John . 
viii. 52. rts Tov exov Aoyor 38 Origen sol, but not B. 


If B omitted rys Zupias at Luke ii. 2 as does syr hier we might think 

it basic. Or if B omitted rns Tovdacas in Luke i. 5 as do Evan 255 

[neglected by Soden] and diatess we might talk of neutrality for B. Or 

at Luke iti. 1 where % omits rs covdSaras after rovriov wiNarou a8 does 

ae vi. 27, 28, 29, 30 (¢f. also verse 31). Had B shown us either Justin's 
or Clement's forms of these verses we might think B were 
neutral, but B does not offer us their text. 

45. Dial [negl. Sod] omits with ff [negl. Tisch] rys xapbias after ex 
rov ayaov Onoavpov. Not so B. [At ix. 2 where Dial omits” 
tous aabevers with B Hort follows. ] 

46. Tt pe Aeyere D 28 Clem™** et d Iren™ bis Orig™ dicitis, 
while B and most have 7: Se pe wadere, ” (K 259 2°" Xaderre.) 

Very noticeable hereabouts in. chapter. vi. and shapter Vii. 
are omissions of X not shared by B. Among these note: 

vii. 20. —ot avSpes &, whereas B and most have mpos avrov o 
av8pes, while D 38 a dr sah (aeth syr hier) have ot avdpes mpos 
avrov, the varying order suggesting that N’s base may be 
original. Cf. syr sin syr pesh. 

25. S:ayovres (pro vrapyovtes) of Clem DKII al. finds no echo in B. 

27 fin. —eunpoobey cov D 122* [negl. Sod] ad lr Tert™™ 

(non liquet Epiph™") but B and the rest have it. 

38. eBpefe (pro npEato Bpexew)  Epiph™ bis [negl. Sod] and D 

[male Sod'™ de 604] it?! syr cu sin but not B. 

89. Had Hort found 7 amtopyevy for nris awreras here he would 
surely have thought it “neutral,” for so writes Origen, 
confirmed by D*. 

viii. 3. Had B and any cursives read era:pa: for erepas here, aa does 
the codex Alexandrinus repeated by Sod, we might even 
have had this forced into the new printed text as “ neutral.” 

24, ty Badacon pro tw xrvdwv tov vdatos Epiph™*™ bis, while D 
omits tov vdatos. Notso B. (Sod! 8 add xaz ry Gadacon 
before tw «dvSeve.) oe 

27. Da d y** H** vg™ (copt) diatess omit tes [Sod neglects all 
but D and a], but while most write avnp tis, B has tis avyp, 
as if rss had been supplied from the margin of the archetype 
and placed in a doubtful position (cf. copt). 


EPILOGUE. AS TO MARCION AND B, 431 


Luke 
ix. 19, Aeyovew ot pa@yntrat (pro ot Se anoxpibertes exxov) Dial 


xi. 18. 


xii. 


22. 


( 30. 


31. 
41. 


simpliciter et of. syr sah contra B rell. 

Had B used oravpwOqvac (for amoxravOnvat) here as do Justin 
Theodot and Dial we might have thought this “ neutral.” 
—orrwes noav Epiph™*” bis (non liquet accurate Tert) and 
syr cu sin, not B, while D a d Arnob have yy Se as most 
Latins, showing something fundamentally different in the 
original base. 

—or opGevtes Epiph™ bis. 

—xat Steotpappevn Epiph™™ bis Tert™* and a [negl. Sod] e, 
but not B. 

[Here Epiph and Tert agree, while below Tert has quousque 
ero apud vos (—Kat aveEopat vpov), while Epiph bis has cs 
more aveFouat upwy (— ews Tote ecowat Tpos ugas).] Syr ote sin 
reverse the order from amtotos xat Sieotpap. to Seorpap. Kat 
amtoros, a8 another barometric indication, while diatess-arab 
quoting from Matthew xvii. 17 holds the Matthaean and 
Lucan order avictos xa duectpap. Syr cu in Matt reverses 
the usual order there to d:ecrpap. Kat amtotos a8 syr cu sin 
in Luke. 


. =—mpeto Tert™™ Orig et Const cum Paris” d r et D*? (ef. 


D** spwrov ante ocxtav), Non B. 


. Cf. Ignat Hipp Cypr against B and the rest. 
. Is there anything neutral about deboxa by NBC*LX al. pauc 


it?! Orig ete., against the express S:Swye of Justin Iren'™ Eus 
confirmed by D c d syr cu sin [against Aphraat Ephr] syr 
pesh diatess and the rest of the Greeks? Soden actually sup- 
presses the witness of Justin. 


. ~«at Bacirers Tert™™ confirmed by D d andae ffil Method, 


Not B. 

ovtes Dial and Epiph™=™* Cyr* Ath with NDKMXII and 
several notable cursives including 157 and 213 (= Sod), 
against B etc. vrapyovrtes. 


. Cf. Tert™* [which Soden neglects] and D 130 251 latt syr 


cu sin against B and the rest. 


. ov davepwOnaerat (pro ov aroxadupOncerat B rell) D (et d a 


non revelabitur) Tert™™ non patefiet. 


. Barew (pro euBarev) DW Epiph™™ ™ ClemTheodt contra B 


rell epBarev. (Is not Soden wrong in quoting Justin for 
Barewy ?) 


. —Tav ayyeckov N* 259 Epiph™? Tert™™, 
. pepwow Clem Origen Cyr" confirmed by D 6b q against 


eapepwow NBLX al. pauc. and zpocdepwow A rell, May 
I ask why eodepwow should be “neutral” rather than 
depwaow ? 








432 


Luke 


ibid, 


xii, 14. 


20. 


21. 


27. 


CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


This is followed in DNR (latt) and Clem by «cs ras 
ouvaryoryas for emt ras avvay. Cf. Tisch ad loc. . 
—n 1 prim. Clem Orig Cyr" confirmed by D 157 latt syr 
aeth (cf. copt). 
xpirqy tantum = —n peptotyy Tert™™ confirmed by D Bs c 28 
33 syr cu sin, while the others vary as to their amplification of 
xptrqv, 157 going so far as to substitute apyovra xat dtxagrqy 
for Sixacray 7 pepiotny or xperny 9 pepiotqv. And sak 1/6 has 
pepiotny without xpirqy or dixacryy, while aeth reverses the 
order (always a suspicious sign) giving “divider and judge.” 
Surely Marcion and D look more “ neutral’’ than B. 


. -avatavov 36 [negl Sod] and Clem™ cat ox (ff, sed aliter f') 


against the rest. 

twos (pro tic) Tert™™ confirmed by d and latt (cujus) 
Tren Cypr,and in Greek by D Clem 1/8 Antioch, but as 
the Latin lends itself to this, although cui is possible, and 
Clem has tives once and rit twice this passage cannot be 
emphasised. 

D ab d omit the verse and Clem does not quote. 

mos oute onder ovre udatver Clem confirmed by D a d syr cu 
sin Tisch Sod™* against ws avEave * ov coma ovde vnber of 
NB and most and W-H tzt. 


30. tyre. =Tert™ Clem, confirmed by D (d Tert quaerunt), 


32. 


38. 


46. 


against em{nre of A unc?! Bas Ath, and emfnrovew of 
NBLTX fam 13 33 Paris” ff l rand f Tert™, At we seek 
a neutral, yres appears the more probable. 

onarnp (-vpov) Epiph™™ bis. ie Be. BR ees 

S has vywy o trarnp as sah boh. Pe 
-B rell o marnp vpwv. 

kat cav On ty eotreptivn Guraxn D (fom 1) b ced fil 
confirmed by Epiph™” and Iren™, as against naz cay 6A9n ev 
tn devtepa gud. Kat ev ty TpLTy dvd. Of most, Or Kav E&Y T7 
Sevrepa nar @ ty tpern pur. of NBUTX 33 131 Cyr sah ete. 
Had B exhibited Marcion’s and D’s version Hort should 
surely have acclaimed it “‘ neutral,” whereas there are two 
separate recensions apparently outside of Marcton and D lait. 
Clem does not quote. 

Order: xas to pépos avtou Once peta tov amictwv Dial Caes 
supported by D d r, gat vg® sah boh syr, against xa: To pepos 
auto peta tov amiotov Once of B and most. This is not an 
uninteresting place, for while the Latins go with B® here in 
Luke, it is to be observed that in Matthew xxiv. 5] although 
Onoa follows vroxpitov there in Greek, D and most Latins 
place ponet before pera as Dial in Luke. That Dial and Caes 
are from Luke is proved by their holding amerwy against 


EPILOGUE. AS TO EUSTATHIUS. 433 


Luke 
vroxpitev of Afatthew which only X fam 1 and a few cursives 


substitute in Luke, while the diatess conflates. 

xii, 48. awattnsovow Justin Epiph Clem Const Mac Bas™™'™ 
Antioch [Soden only mentions Basil] confirmed by DU al”, 
against astgcovow of the rest. See under “ Improvement” 
at xii. 20 further as to avrovew and ama:tovew. 

Besides if we wish to enquire what text was actually in use in 
Antioch in the middle of the fourth century, it would not, as regards the 
Acts at any rate, seem to have been that of NB or of what has been 
called the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan recension, but that of D! 
For Eustathius quoting Acts xvi. 16/19 has in verse 19 a text approxi- 
mating D in quite an exceptional manner [Sod neglects Hustath] : 

Eustath : Oeacapevor ovy os xupiot ts Oeparrasvidos ws extrodwy wero 
TNS Epyacias avtwv 7 EXT. 
D: ws S¢ ecdav (= syr) ot xuptoe tys wedtaxys oT aTeatepyabat 
TIS Eepyacias avrav ns ecxav d¢ avs. 
ordinary text: eovres Set on xupioe avrns ort e&nrOev n eXmis THS Epyactas 
auto. 
The full quotation is subjoined. 
Act 

xvi. 16/19. (@yévero 88 masdloxnv) dnavrica: twit (pnow) eyovcav 
tvetpa TuOay os Hep épyaciay ToAd Tapéxertois xupios adris 
pavrevopén. 11 roryapody abrn xataxodovbécaca 7H Ilatrdp 
Kai jpiv éxpate A€yovea ob Tws Odtot of dvOpwra Soida Tod 
Geoh tov inpiotov eich oftwes Kataryyéddovow Auiv ddov 
cornpias, Wxai todto ext wordds Exparrev myuépas... 
mapayyéeddw cot (A€yw) ev dvopare 'Inaod Xprotod éEedOeiv, an’ 
abrijs (elra 1b mpaypa Sipyovpevos 6 ouyypadeds émidéper) cal 
eknrGev aiti ti Opa. 19 Geacdpevot obv of xupion tis 
Ocparrawides ws exmobar wxeTo THs épyacias abréy 7 eds émt- 
AaBspevar tov Laddov cai tov Stray efrAxuoav eis riv dyopav 
émt tobs dpyovtas... t 


t xac Wovres B.  Bovres (—copla) A d. 


$16. rBavos CDEHLPS Cyr Did Lucif ¢ gig mvbava NABC*D* 
83 61 vg Orig. 
amaytnaat ADHLPS vravrngat «= NBCE min’ Orig. 
yep (pro ytts) new 
mapexet Galland (al. mapecxer) Euatath. C mapetxero, rell omn 
Taperxev 


17 init. +rovyapody —_new, prob. addition of Eustath as he narrates freely. 
xataxodoudecaca, ACEHLP xaraxoAovéncaca 5 xaraxohovéavga NBD 
180 ; mapaxox. aliq. 
+ouras (post Aeyaven) new? No others apparently. Only copt +xe 
npiy (pro vp) AC*HLP al, ¢ sah? copt aeth Orig Lucif? Chr; vw 
NBDEFS vg syr arm acth 
2F 


434 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


REGARDING OUR ‘“ JUNIOR” DocUMENTS. 


I would like to make an observation here. 

It is of no use thinking we can hope to prosper in these studies by 
changing and re-changing the numbers and symbols attaching to our 
critical authorities. It only discourages the student, and leads to endless 
confusion and inaccuracy. Symbols do not change the value of mss or of 
groups. The time spent upon re-catalogaing and in deciphering and 
reducing to order the new catalogues were better spent upon such studies 
as Rendel Harris’ monographs on D d and A 34, or Adaibert Merz’ three- 
volume digest of syr sin. 

Before many more years have passed I expect to see much greater 
attention paid to certain features of the testimony of our important 
cursive documents. These have been put aside because junior in years to 
certain Mss written in uncial characters. I do not mean that attention 
will be given to the testimony of certain cursives as entities, but to 
certain features of their testimony which have probably preserved the 
truth against the mass. No one has ever listed these places. I submit 
tentatively a list of a few of these places involving omission or substitution 
or tarn of phrase which seem to me to be of very great interest. The 
list can be added to by other students and so made to grow from a 
mustard seed into tree the shadow of whose critical branches may 
spread beyond our dreams to-day and help elucidate many matters in 
connection with the early text. The point is that when one of these 
cursives joins B, if only alone, it has been considered as strengthening B, . 
but when alone with the oldest versions such a cursive has been utterly 
disregarded. ; 





(Cont* from last page). 
18. xa rovro (pro rovto de) Orig syr not Gr Latt copt. om. d¢ aah and 
emparrev (pro exotet) new : 


+deyov replaces emev belonging before in the clause. 
19. deawapevot ovy (pro corres 3e) new. No authority, 
As to clause following compare only D d with Eustath: 
D ws de edav (= syr) o1 xuptos ros medsoxns ors ameotepnobat THs epyacias 
avray 7s erxay 3 avrys 
@ cum vidissent domini ejus puelles quoniam ispes et reditus eorum quem 
habebant per ipsam 
Eustath Gcavapevor ovy o1 xupor rps Geparawndos ws exnodwv wero THs epyacias 
auTwy y eAois 
Gigas is blissfully ignorant of this recension but with Lucifer uses 
reditus for quaestue of all others, except ¢ operationis. 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 435 


Possible “neutral” base to be observed in some cursives 
as against & or B. 


{In the following passages I have used the Textus receptus in giving 
the context, which seemed simpler than any other way to exhibit a base 
with which the variations can be compared. 

The examples are nearly all of necessity omissions from the narrative 
as we have it. This does not commit me to the “shorter” text theory in 
its fullest sense. ] 


Matt. vi. 16. Of fasting: 
apavtovct yap Ta tpocwra avtav oTws pavywar Tos avOparras 
vyorevovres. 
N* 244 with g, & syr pesh and pers have the singular to 1poow7ov. 


Matt. xvii. 20. 
Concerning the wording of the command of faith for the removal 
of the mountain : 
O 8e Incous ecrev autos * Aca rH amiotiay vpwr' apunv yap Neyer 
UMEY EQY EXNTE TLATLY WS KOKKOV GlvAaTEWS EpELTE Tw Oper ToUTW * MeTaGnbi 
evreviev exet, Kat peraRnoerar * at ovdev abvvatycer vw. 
exer is omitted by 33 892 Sodens# tam ta 8382 g) J ygg*t? eam Fier Bee and 
syrr acth, 
Syr sin and pers omit both evrevOev and exet. 


Matt. xvii. 25. Of tribute : 

Kaz ore etondOev es Thy atxtay TpoepOacev autov o Ingous Neyov* Te 
aot Soxet Sipeov 3 ot Bacthets THs YNS aro Tivev AapBavover TEX 7 KNVGOY | 
ATO TWY ULwY AUTwWY y aTTO Tw adAOTPLOY ; 

Here 604 with A 28 [negl. Soden] and Evst 47 [negl. Sod. passim] omit 
aQuTwv. 

Tischendorf only records A. Soden only records A 604. 

Evst 47 here is an exceedingly important witness. Neither Tisch. 
nor Sod. quote Origen, but Matthaei has occasion to quote him, for his 
Ms 238 (not mentioned by Soden) reads azo twv sdtwy avtwr and Origen 
remarks: avo tay idiav viev ato Tw adXoTpLwy avTwy; and again on 
verse 26 he repeats: ove aro tw stop viav add ato Twy aAXoTpLWY avTOY. 

This emphasis on his part lends colour to the absence of avrwy in the 
real base since he has to repeat and emphasise coca. 





Matt. xviii. 25. Of the debtor: 
Mn exovros be avtov amodovvar exedevcey avTov o xuptos avTov 
Tpa@nvat, cat THY yuvalKa ... a 
2r2 








436 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Here 604 omits o xvptos avrov outright with fam 1 the Latin g, and 
syr cu sin, both being extant here, and most of Chrysostom’s codices, 
while NBDL and some Latins retaining o «uptos omit the avrov. Tischen- 
dorf says “Or'™** 9 Pactdeus,” but is this correct? Does it not perhaps 
signify that in Origen’s copies o xvpios avrov was absent and o Bacthevs 
supplied by him, as o xupcos or o xupios avtov by others ? 


Matt. xx.12. - Of the labourers : 
Aeyovres (ort) ovrot of exxXaTor pay @pay eTotndav, KaL toovs nuty 
avrous enoinoas, ros Bagtasact To Bapos THs NHEpas KaL TOV Kavawva. 

Here 604 (with 220, an important ms, and 242") omits trys nyepas. 
No others apparently, yet there are subtle variations which point to 
something amiss, syr cu saying “the weight of the whole day and the 
heat,” syr sin: “the weight of the day in the heat,’ Thos: “that have 
borne the weight of the whole day at noon.” 

Why supply oAns? If 79s nuepas was absent in the base it would 
account for some supplying ras nyepas and some oAns THs Nuepas. 

Besides, 251 (another important cursive) writes to Bapos xat tov 
xavoova Tys Nuepas as does aeth, suspiciously adding rns nuepas in another 
order, as does Origen once; while pers with syr pesh has: ro Bapos r75 
NEPas Kat TOV KaVT@Va AUT. 





Matt. xxi. 27. Of Christ’s answer to the chief priests : 
Kar anoxpibevtes ta Incou errov ove oidapev * Edy autos Kat avros 
ovds eyo Neyo uuuty ev Trova eFovota TavTa Tow. 

Here 604, with another important cursive 243 and the latin ms J, 
omits «at autos, while ¢ ff, substitute cas enoous, and & ef, h syr cu pesh 
and pers incovs. Augustine substitutes Dominus, and in another place et 
Dominus. 


Matt. xxv. 11. Of the virgins: 
Torepov Se epxovrat xat at Korat rapbevor Aeyouca... Here 604 


alone leaves out tapGevor. 

You may ransack syr aeth copt and the rest of the Greeks with the 
Latins and not find the omission agreed to. Yet the persian version 
omits ! : 

This is really very striking and bears upon my contention that the 
base of pers although Grasco-Syriac antedates syr cu and syr sin. 

A reference to Dd will show an extra long line here, Xeyouca: and 
dicentes being squeezed in. Possibly tapGevo: absent very early was 
already just supplied before the D d parent was executed. 


Matt. xxvi. 33. 
Concerning Peter's confession of attachment to our Lord: 
Aroxpides 8 o Tlerpos exmev avtw * “Ee nas mavres cxavdade- 
Onoovras ev got, eyw ovderote oxavbaniaOnoouas.” 





EPILOGUE, IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 437 


Tischendorf does not admit us into the inner sanctum of textual 
criticism here, for the important little word airé is omitted by (a) b¢ f; 
pw [hiant e k] vgg?? Rest Asvill Chryostom and Hilary, and the omission is 
confirmed by sah syr sin with its faithful ally pers and 604 with f*" Gn 
Advers. Crit. = 503 Scrivener or 517 Gregory). 

Tischendorf had no Greek witnesses at the time, for although 503 
had been collated by Scrivener in 1863 it was not published until after 
Scrivener’s death. Soden adds his large fam** in which is included 503 
[see this family again in the combination at Matthew xvii. 20 above]. 

Horner only quotes sah and syr sin for omission, neglecting Greek 
Latin and Persian witness. 

The point is whether Peter announced this to those assembled round 
our Lord or to our Lord directly, and there is a vast difference between a 
quiet asseveration and a noisy and popularity-bidding public address to 
the crowd generally. There was sufficient anthority without the Greeks 
for Tischendorf to mention the omission. Merz cannot have noticed the 
large support for syr sin for he does not dwell upon the point at all. 


Matt. xxvi. 49/50. Of Judas’ betrayal : 


Kaz evOews zpocedOwv tw Incov ecme Xatpe paSBr nar xatedidnoer 
avrov. O de Inaous esmev avtw Eraipe ef @ rape ; 
Here 604, with the rather important cursive e*" and Soden™ (a us 
at Sinai), omits avrw as does syr hier. 
D says Exwev 5¢ avtw 0 ine ef o nape erepat and 
d dixit autem illi ihs ad quod venisti ame (another mixture of ellipsis 
and suspension for amice, noticed elsewhere as to D’s greek, for which 
that document is famous). N and 2 omit Incous [this is quite neglected 
by Soden] writing ‘0 de eee avtw.” 


Matt. xxvi. 71. Of the damsel’s identification of Peter: 


Efer@ovra Se avtov es tov tudwva etdev avTov addy, Kal NeyEL TOLS 
exes Kat ovros yy pera Incov tov Natwpacov. 

157 writes xas Aeyer avTous exw. 

Now syr sin and pers omit exe: here and thus agree with 157. 

The rest have avras or rors but with exec. 

Here is a pretty puzzle. How did 157 get exeiwn if exet did not stand 
in its exemplar (otherwise close to syr and pers)? But if exeewn were basic 
and avros became mutilated and read as rors, rors exervy would become 
intolerable and therefore be changed to tous exes. 

Cf. syr sin ~_eal wisawe (—exes) as against: 

syr pesh (exer) ol; coors }eolo. 

Herman von Soden refers to syr stn’s omission of exe: in his upper 

notes but does not refer to 157 (he never cites pers) and Tischendorf cites 





438 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


neither pers nor 157 although Scholz (p. 99 N.T.) had recorded 157 
correctly and reported pers. (Cf. Part II. note on —exes at John xviii. 2). 

Then consider the +a: Oekw of 157 at Mark v. 23 with pers alone 
+0edw or +peto, and this reading will strike us as not very young after all. 

Then, after this addition, consider the important omission by 157 
alone at Mark xiv. 57 of xar avrov Neyovres which may well be what Merz 
calls Wanderwérte and the xat avtov supplied by an over-zealous person 
in editio 11 of the sacred narrative. Pers omits xar avrov, writing 
“quidam alit subornarunt testes falsos et dicebant”’ instead of “ xal reves 
dvactdyres &fevSopaptipovy kat’ abtod Neyovtes.”” Now k also omits «ar 
avtov writing “et alii surgentes commentiebantur et dicebant...” 
Whether Aeyovres is a “ Wanderwort” or not remains an open question, 
but «at avrov would seem to be wander-words. Upon reference to the 
passage it will be seen that «ar avrov is not necessary ; would hardly have 
been excised if present, but readily supplied in an “improved” edition. 
Remains syr sin, which says ‘‘ Now some rose up against him and say,” 
eliminating eyevSouaptupovy. This text looks to me younger here than 
pers and 157. There has been a change made in early times, and the 
methods employed should be able to teach us something. D d c f insert 
«ar avrov after eheyov as an afterthought as it were (from the margin ?). 
That good old witness aeth also omits car avrov (against sah boh), but 
something bothered him for he duplicates the Xeyovres or conflates NeyovTes 
of most with the edeyov of D (syr sin), for he writes “‘et surrexeruni testes 
falsi et loquuti sunt et dixerunt.” 

For —«xat avrov we have now 157 & pers aeth. 

Can you find that combination in Tischendorf? Tisch is silent. 
. Or in Soden? Soden is blind to it, for he simply says “Om «ar 
78871 (om «or evry)? T presume we should now add that very important 
document § 371 (= B elsewhere) for «ar avtou. 

Pers comes in again with 157 at Luke ix. 13 for the omission of es 
mavta (before roy Aaov) and Paris” witnesses to wavra being an addition 
or ‘‘ Wanderwort” by omitting it and writing es tov Aaov. (Three boh 
codices confirm 157 pers). 

Note.—Neither Tischendorf’s nor von Soden’s apparatus cover many 
curious things exhibited by individual Greek mss, although they have. 
Version support. A critical edition, however, which neglects these things 
in our day is faulty and not up to date. It forces the student to hunt 
over the older authorities from Mill to Scrivener, which should not be 
necessary. The text-history can be rewritten in a measure from detailed 
observations of the kind indicated above. 

Observe further, as regards the “shorter” text, that an omission 
such as that of & in Mark xv. 8 of both avafas and ava8oncas points in a 
different direction to that of other omissions, for here k avoids a very 
difficult choice between the two words, and his omission does not indicate 
that the omission is basic. 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 439 


Mark i. 35. Of Christ’s withdrawal into a desert place for prayer: 
Kat mpor evvvxov Atay avacrtas e&ndOe xat anndOev ets epnpov ToTroy 
axel TpocnuXETO. 

The primitive text here is in doubt, but 226 with Sod’ a (exiit et 
abiit) ¢ (exiens inde abiit) and syr sin omit avaotas while D does the same 
but opposite efile xat anndOev has “exsurgens abiit.” Syr sin has 
“‘came forth went” without copula, but syr pesh “ antevertit et surrexit 
ac abiit,” while pers is “ surrexit et in locum desertum abiit.” 

B* and a few important cursives such as 28 213 2°" Sod**! have 
avaotas efndOev without car amnrOev [but 604 Paris” and most agree 
with text recept], while W has avagtas amn\Oev without efndOev xa. 

beqsurgens abiit d (as above) f vg* exsurgens abiit 

5 surgens egressus et abiit 

f ogg surgens egressus abiit J surgens egressus est et abiit 

Goth holds the three expressions: usstandands usiddja jab galaith ana. 
Sah is wanting. Boht' express ‘‘ Kat avacras mput evvuxoy Mav ender,” 
but some vary. 


Mark ii. 26 jin. 
Of Christ’s reference to David’s action in the Hcuse of God: 
~ Kat eSwxe Kat TOS GUY AUTW ovgt. 

G04 and 2” omit the final ovew. To these now add W Sod and 
Sod with aeth. 

301 Evst 31 44 150 omit the whole clause, as does pers. 

Observe that W Sod 2" and 604 invert: «at edmxe Kat Tots per auTov 
(= over) ovs ove eFeotiw fayew et pun tars cepevaty (pro ous ov eteoTt... 
Tots ouvy avtw over) so that the ovs here might have caused the loss of 
ovat, but not so aeth, which maintains the other order, yet loses ovo at 
the end. 


Mark iv. 1. Of the crowd at the lake-side-teaching : 

Ka wadw nptaro &idackev tapa thy Oadacacay * Kas cuvnxOn mpos 
avtov oxdos Todus ware avTov enBavta es To TAotoY KaOnaOa ev TH 
Oaracan * kat was 0 oXAOs Tpos THY Gadaccay ere THS YNS NY. 

Here 604 alone leaves out mpos tov Gadagcay altogether, but is 
supported by aeth. 

D reads wepav rns Oadacons as a d gq and the Syriac, omitting em 
Ts yns, and W ev tw arvyadw as the Latins b ce f fg 7, while the versions 
vary, pers sah and most boh expressing ev tw aryiakw ths Oadacans. The 
other boh codices vary, and arm expands to ‘‘on the shore they were 
keeping to the dry land.” 

fam read mapa thy Ban. ert ts yas Ww and 

A reads ENS 4, 45, 499), MGQH (8 in Vel Circa mare super 

terra erat sic) 
apparently ETL 5, 4, TPOS 4, 4, TY (OT Noa) 





440 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Laura4™™ changes the order of the end to v em: rns ryqs, and 
NBCLA d (erant sic) 892 with Evst 49 and y* and a few substitute yoav 
for nv, while some Latins as syr have stabat or staret (c) or sedebat (). 
Some have em: rqv ynv nv. 

In the midst of all this confusion (with d going against D with A, 
and 6 going against A with D) 604 stands out with a simple omission and 
has support of aeth. 


Mark iv. 20. Of the parable of the sower: 
Ka OVTOL ELoty OL ETL THY HY THY KAaANY OTapErTES ... 

28 2°* and pers [mut. syr cu sin] omit ovror. 

Add to these Sod®® and deduct 157 which I find does not omit 
{confirmed to me again by Monsignor Mercati] although Scholz reports it 
for omission with 28. 

Observe that NBCLA substitute exevoe. 


Mark v. 23, Of Jairus’ speech to our Lord: 
Kaz mapexade avtov ToAAa Neyer ott To Ouyarptoy pov eqxaTas 
exet’ . wa edOav emOns avtn tas YeEipas ows awOn Kat Enoeras. 
157 inserts xas Gchw before wa edOwv = pers [Obs. the extraordinary 
base of pers in the later examples]. ° 


Mark v. 43. Of Christ’s injunction for silence following the healing: 
Kaz ScerretXaro autos TodXa wa pnders yvw tovto * Kat eve SoOqvat 
autn pare, ee 

Here 604 alone [now joined by Sod”, a very important witness], with 
d (which Soden neglects and he does not mention ¢ ff) and ¢ ff ¢ with aeth 
and pers (replacing syr cu and sin which are wanting), omits tovro 
altogether. The dtatessaron quotes ex Luc viii. 56, which brings in ro 
ryeyovos (0 Se mapnryyethev avrots pndeve ecrrecy to yeryovos), and therefore 
Sod 604 aeth pers ¢ d ff and q are quite unaffected by a harmony here 
in Mark. 

Gregory will please note this and bring it into his new apparatus, for 
Tischendorf neglects the omission altogether, not even recording d which 
has: wt + nemint dicerent although D has wa pnSes yoo tovto, the Toute 
occupying a place on the line below, opposite which d has nothing. 

—tovto may well be basic, and have been supplied to round out the 
sentence. 

As a matter of fact the Latins vary the expression, 7 6 and vgg having 
td, e having illum, a f having hoc, and b having istut, while ¢ df q omit. 


Mark vi. 39. Of the feeding of the multitudes : 
Kaz ererakev autos avaxduwvas Tavtas cupmocia cuptocia... 
604 with arm and pers (this conjunction here apparently antedating 
the syriac of syr sin) omit mavras, while Origen with 2" and Soden*** 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 441 


changes the order (barometric sign) to wavtas avaxdivat, and the important 
minuscule 33, with all bo” mss but one, elides wavyras and substitutes 
avtTous. 

33 604 therefore with doh arm and pers form no mean combination 
here for omission. 

[{n my collation of Evan. 604 p. Ixvi delete 473 (= 2°") and place the 
reading of GO4 on p. xxxii. under ‘‘ Unique.”’] 


Mark vii. 6. Of the quotation from Isaiah : 
O S¢ aoxpiders errev avrois (ort) kadkws mpoepytevoey Hoaras Tepe 
ULWY TWY UTOKPLT@Y WS YEeyPaTTAL:... 

For ws yeypatrat 604 substitutes Xeyov with ¢ ff dicens, D di «at 
erev, fam 1 2" arm ws exvrev, Sod os eemev as a b: qui dixit, while syr 
sin conflates: ‘as it is written that he had said.” 

Clearly the reading of 604 ¢ fis the simplest of all, and syr sin knew 
both readings at the time that document was prepared. 


Mark vii. 8. Of the ceremonials of the Pharisees : 

Agevtes yap tv evtoAnv tov Qcov, xpaterte THY mapabocw TeV 
avOpeTt@v Banticpous Eeotwy Kat mornptwyv Kat adda Tapopola ToLaUTAa 
TOANG ToLelTe. 

28 and 2°* (to which now add Sod*) omit mwoAAa. 

Observe great variety among others: rosavra 7roAXa Tapopola, TOAXAA 
Tapopola TOLAaUTA, Tapopoia wokda TOLAUTA, TAPOMOLA TOLAVTA TOLELTE 
modNa, TWapopota Toterte Torauta wodda, always shifting woAAa about, 
while a few drop toravra in the process. 

Om. vers. syr sin. Cf. diatess. Explic. NBLWA ad verb. avOpwrwv. 

(Soden neglects 28 for omission of odAa.) 





Mark vii. 23. Of the wickednesses of the human heart: 
TAaVTA TAVUTA TA TOVnpa ecadev EXTIOPEVETAL Kat KOtvot TOV avOpwrov. 

This follows the long list of evil things in verse 22, and ra ovnpa is 
therefore not necessary in verse 23. For this reason it may have been 
removed as an “improvement” by 1 2?* and 604, who omit, but it is 
rather a strong combination among the cursives, and might be basic. I 
say ‘‘ might” at a venture, but upon turning up the persian version, there 
again in that marvellous document, so pregnant of ‘‘ base,’ ta zovnpa 
does not find a place. It is quite striking. 

(Some omit ravra, some ravta and some ta ante Tovnpa.) 


Mark viii. 25 fin. 
Concerning the wording of the final clause as to the blind man’s 
restored sight : 
.. Kat eveBrerey THLaVYwWS aTrayTas. 
Some read amavra (and DW mapta), and some dyrkavyws, and some 





442 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


aveSderev, and some vary the order in which aravras or avavra finds 
@ place, and aeth copt syr have wav or omne, but it is left for 33 alone 
of Greeks with ¢ k alone of Latins to omit azavra or omnia outright! 
Tregeiles, confirmed by Soden (I suppose by independent collation), 
mentions 33, but Tischendorf has not mentioned 33 in his vith edition, 
confining himself to. the enumeration of c k. In such a place as this 
omnéa might well be an addition, and its omission be basic. 


Mark x. 8. Of the close union of husband and wife: 
wate ouxert erat duo adrAa pua cape. 
28 (neglected by Soden) 71 Evst 222, now joined by W and Sod? 
with d [contra D**] ff k syrr (pers) sah aeth (boh™) have ove for ovxert. 
Notwithstanding this large testimony, Tischendorf does not even 
mention this variation. In his day only 28 71 and Evst 222 witnessed to 
it. But now add W (confirming 28) and Sod™” with d ff & and versions. 





Mark x. 21. Of the righteous young man: 
O & Inaous euPreYpas avtw yyaTnoev avTov Kas etrev AUTOM .. 


avrw, after euSreYas, is omitted by 28 and Clem. Tischendorf did 
not know of 28 when citing Clem. Sod'** "5" also omit. 


Mark x. 47. Of blind Bartimaeus: 
Kaz axovcas ort Inoous o Nafwpatos core nptato xpatew Kas 
eye... 

28 omits «ar Aeyev with sah’ (Horner overlooks the agreement of . 
Greek 28 with his sah ms). 

Upon turning once more to the persian (oh wonderful and neglected 
monument of antiquity for control of such readings) it is found that pers 
also omits the xas Xeyerv or Xeywy of the rest. Pers us interpreted reads: 
et clamore sublato vociferatus est without any mere “saying” about it. 


Mark x. 51. 
Kat amoxpiBets eyes avtw o Inoous tt Oedets wotnew cor; O be 
tudros errev auto paBBovt wa avaBreYrw. 
28 with 892 (omitted by Soden) omits this second avrw. They are 
supported by ¢ aeth and once more by that wonderful pers (against the 
syriacs which we know): ‘“ Caecus respondit.” 





Mark xii. 4. Of the parable of the lord of the vineyard : 
Kat Tah arectethe Tpos avtous adAoy SouAov. 

This «at init. is omitted by 28 and ce sah 4/6 arm, and turning to 
pers the omission is once more confirmed by that version [syr sin omits 
the whole verse]. 

On the other hand wadw is omitted by W (sister of 28) with X and 
oné sah ms", not all as would be gathered not only from Tisch but from 





EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 443 


Soden, for the rest substitute “ Afterwards ” except sai!” which has both 
saititcuuc and ort. 

Observe that arm pers quite replace the old syriac here, which omits 
the verse. 

(Note.—The viciousness of the elder Soden’s practice of quoting “af” 
instead of e or k or ¢ & is illustrated excellently here. He says ‘om «at! 
I°' afc.” He means “om. 28 ec” for & has it “ Et iterum.”) 

Since W reads Kas and 28 Iladu for Kas wade thus opposing the text 
of the majority, but each ina different way, it is clear that a mark of 
deletion stood in the margin of the common parent and was applied by 
one of them to the wrong word. 


Mark xii. 26. Of the resurrection, referring to Exod. iii. 6: 
Tleps 8 rev vexpwv ort eyerpovrat ovk aveyvwre ev TH BiB\wo Macews 
emt Ts Batou ws evtrev avtw o Geos Neywv eyw o cos ABpaap... 
Aeywor is omitted by 28 b aur vg® diatess-arab sah 1/4 and syrr with 
pers and arm. 


Mark xii. 30. Of the first and second Commandments: 
auTn TpwTT EVTOAN * Kas Sevtepa omota avTN... 

There is very great variation here, but 28 2?*, joined by W Sod k 
Eus™*" t simply omit evroAy while having airy mpaéty which is omitted 
together with evtohkn by NBELAY copt. The syriacs retain avty mpworn 
evToAn, 





Mark xii. 34. Of the silence imposed by Christ’s answer: 
Kaz ovders overs eroApa avTov ~ eTepwTyaat. 

Here 28 with pers once more adds t+ after avrov and before ereparnoa, 
So do 6 q at the end: Et nemo iam audebat eum interrogare QUICQUAM. 
This wording (without guicguam) is exactly that of d which retains jam, 
while the Greek of D opposite lacks ovxer: as do V 124 Sod" and sah 
boh. b-q especially in conjunction are very important in Mark. How did 
zt get in or out of the text? The secret seems to lie in the ovx/erz, for 
instance 61 c*T reading ov« without evs but not supplying ce later. x‘? 
places ovxer: last, writing: «at ovdes eroAua avrov exepwtnoat ovxert. A 
few and a merely reverse ouxert eroApea to eroApa ouxert, N Paris®™ Sod™ ¢ 
merely reverse avtov emepwrnoat to emepwrnoca: avtov. It remains for W 
to supply a key, for W writes: xa: ovdes eroAua avtov oveets ewepwrar, 
bringing ovxere before ewepwrav, which in a close uncial supplies the 
missing 1 exhibited by b and g and 28 pers. The closest relationship 
between W 28 and some common parent is thus shown again here, for 28 
also writes ewepwray instead of erepwrncat. (Evan 433 bok supply ers after 
emepwtnaat, omitting ovxere previously.) 





ft Diserte “xara Mapkov"” ... totum locum exscripsit et in fine tta: avry mpwrq * Kat 
Sevrepa ovata raury (sic). 





444 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Mark xiii, 2. Of the great buildings of the Temple 
Kaz o Inoovs amoxpibes evcmev avtw Brewes tavtas tas peyadas 
otxodonas ; 

0 Inoovs is not found in 2 604 a b ir? and vg®¥, Add also W 
and Sod” which are observed also to omit. 

There exists quite some variety as to the form of the sentence, and 
there is hardly any reason to remove o Incovs, while there is every reason 
to insert it, because the Greeks do not mention Jesus by name in verse 1. 

Horner neglects 2° and 604 while giving a 6 i. 


Mark xiv. 35. Of the agony in the garden: 

Kas mpoc\Bav puxpov erecev emt tas yns Kat mpoonuyeto... So 
most, but DGS Sod® fam 1 fam 18 2°* 604 al* latt arm syr sin add 
ewe Wpogwtoy OF ert Tpotwrov autou, retaining em: Ts yn. 

28 alone substitutes ews wpoowmov avrov for ext ts yns with c: in 
faciem (~ejus), for k syr sin and others have in factem super terram. 

Pers opposes 28 here and has merely in terram as most Greeks. 

The conflation is old. 28 must have chosen the wrong half of it, 
unless by some chance 28 and c alone retain the right half, 


Mark xiv. 46. ’ Of the capture of Christ: 
Oz S¢ eweBadov ex avtov tas yetpas avrwy Kat expatnoay autor. 
892 (and now add W Sod also) d ff aeth pers omit er avtov. This 
amid a great variety of readings by the others. 





Mark xiv. 57. OF the trial of Christ: 
Kaz tives avacravres erevdopaptupouy Kat avtov evyovTes ort. . . 
157 (and now Sod5*"! 4 very important witness) with k pers and aeth 
omit xat avtov. 
Observe the manner of treating this in some others. See p. 438. 


Mark xv. 36. 
In connection with him who tendered the sponge of vinegar: 
Apapeoy S¢ eis xat yepscas omoyyov o€ous wepibas Te Kadapw enoriter 
aurov Neyou Agere tSapev et epyerat HALus Kabedew avrov, 

This is a difficult place. As W is lacking here (hiat xv. 13-38) and 
28 exhibits a rare reading I will cite it. 

28 alone substitutes for Xeyev ‘ot Se NoeTrot EX@yov"” which may come 
from a reference to Matt xxvii. 49 “a: S¢ Novwor edeyov"’ [B and a few 
there erov]. In St. John xix. 29 wepiOevres (and zAnoavtes previously 
of some Mss) makes the action that of more than one man. 

The fact remains, although the diatess follows Matthew's wording 
“But the rest said,” yet using all the Gospel accounts (§ lii.) that syr sin 
and pesh turn Aeywv into the plural supplying a copula, while pers merely 
has a stop after evorc{ev avrov. and continues “ dicebant.” They therefore 





EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 445 


read the plural without supplying Aoiro: of Matthew. D* cuts the knot 
by omitting Aeywv altogether. Fam 18 substitute Aeyorres for Neywv, but 
do it in an ampler way, turning all into the plural. Is Xeyw» of most 
really basic in Mark or an error, and did the original read Aeyovor? Or 
was the original Latin dicunt or dicebant and not dicens ? 


Luke i. 21. Of Zacharias’ delay in the Temple: 
Kat nv 0 Xaos rpocdoxun tov Zayaptay * cat avpatoy ev tw Xpoveley 
avTov ev Tw vaw, — 
€” To vaw is omitted by 604 and Soden’, as well as by 34 39 108 
142° and k** (these Soden neglects). 
- Syr cu and sin are both missing. 
BLWVE and 2° Paris” change the order. 


Luke i. 29. Concerning Mary’s wonder at the salutation of the angel: 
H be oven SierapayxOy ext to Moye avrov, Kat Sedoytlero Totaros ein 
0 ACTACLOS ovTOS. 
Here the famous cursive c'* omits exy with [* Sod! 2017 fam exe. b 346 t 
Syr cu sin are wanting. : 
L and a few substitute e. D Sod®* Sod'® emphasise av em, but en 
might well be basic. 
(Observe e “ recogitans quia sic benedixit eam.”’) 


Luke i. 66, 
Of the wonder engendered at the baptism of John Baptist : 
Kar efevto waves ot axoveartes ev Tn Kapdia autor, Aeyovtes. . . 
Here 604 omits o: axovoarres with e syr pesh*, while syr sin omits 
mavres and ot axovoavtes, Soden now adds 348 (his ™', quite an 
important ms) for omission of os axovcayres, while neglecting to 
record 604. 
For o: axoveavtes CD* 118-209 130* 234 892 al. et Sod? 1354 (of. 
# goth arm) substitute o: axovovres, while pers (as rendered) = Et qui- 
cungue audivit, and aeth (as rendered) = Et custodierunt in cordibus 
suis omnia quae audiverant, showing an apparent basic difference to be 
compromised. (See p. 454 Mark vi, 2). 


Luke ii. 3. Of the enrolment or registration : 
Kat exopevovto mavres atroypaperOat, exacros es Tyv tdtav Tod, 

Here c** omits exaoros. Tischendorf fails to report this and Soden 
refuses to give the omission 4 place in his apparatus, but it is important. 
Observe that Burkitt for syr sin has to supply “ each one” in italics [he 
uses very few italics thus}: ‘‘ Now every one (szaw Jaa) [was going] to 
be [enrolled] even from [his] city was each one going to his place that 
there he might be enrolled.” 

Notice also that N omits wavtes with Sod) 25, &* writes xas 





446 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


emopevorto (retaining the plural verb) exacros awoypapesbe ets THY cavTwY 
mov, shortening, as pers and diatess: ‘‘ Et unusquisque ivit ut in urbe 
sua describeretur,” and syr’™ “ Ht ibat quisque ut describeretur in urbem 
suam.” : : . oe 
There is something to ponder over here. 


Luke ii. 11. Of the angel’s speech to the shepherds: 


ott erexOn vpiv onpepov aatnp, os eatt Xpiatos Kupuos. 
onpépov is omitted by 604 with 18 50 55 62 116 201 n™ Evst 52. 
Soden adds *™ but neglects 604 and all the rest. (What is the use of 
such notes ?) 
The important witness Sod' 57 of the NB family changes the order to 
gernp onyepov (as boh*) and may have imported onpepov from his margin. 


Luke vi. 10. | Concerning the man with the withered hand : 
Kae mepiSrepapevos mavtas avrovs, ete to avOparw * Exteiwov roy 
Xetpa aov * o Se emoincey avTw * Kat aTroxatertadn 7 Yelp avTOU VytNS ws 
2” addy. 

This passage is practically in the same class as the one noticed 
toward the end of this. chapter at vi. 48 jin. 

Instead of 6 Se eromncev, NDX al. it vg copt syr pesh arm aeth 
substitute o Se eferewev (compare Matt. xii. 13, Mark iii. 5), and a 
minority have o && erornoev ovtws. The detail will be found in Tischen- 
dorf, but he neglects to state that co omits the phrase altogether! Soden 
having found another Ms (Sod'“*) which omits, does mention this in his 
notes. : : 

Syr sin is missing here, and therefore we have no check on the 
critical codices c™* Sod“*, Yet the situation is suspicious and reminds us 
of vi. 48. - There, we have two alternatives: a ro xadws otxodopnaGat 
having no reference to the parallel, and refeyehiwro yap emt Tyv TeTpav a8 
in Matt. vii. 25, while syr sin and gr. 604 show us a blank. Here we 
have o Se evorncev (ovtw) having no reference to the parallel, and o de 
eferewev a plain verbal importation from the double parallels in Matt. 
and Mark, while c** and Sod“ exhibit.a blank in Luke. 

The matter should be carefully noted, for the supplementary matter 
interjected in alternative phrases is not at all necessary at this place. 


Luke vi. 48 jin. : 
Of the parable of the house whose foundations are secure : 
“‘ reBepedtwro yap ent Thy metpay” of most, — 
or “da To Kadws otxoSounodat avr” of the few [negl. 
avtgy TH], 
but entirely omitted by 604 and syr sin [Pers has the upper clause with 
most]. 
Aeth already conflates both readings. 


EPILOGUE, IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 447 


Luke vii. 9. Of Christ’s appreciation of the centurion’s faith : 
Axovoas S€ tavta o Ingous eBavuacey avrov * Kat atpadets Tw axoAou- 
Govytt avtw oxAw ere... 

604 alone of Greeks, to which now add Sod*! “3, omits tauta. 

With this syr sin and syr hier agree, as also aeth and one boh ms*, 
while one sah Ms® says ere mat ‘concerning these things.” Horner 
omits to chronicle syr hier (all three codices) which agree with syr sin. 

Observe that while syr pesh has ravzva it changes the order, and C* 
has Axoveas Se 0 Incous tava. 


Luke ix. 9. 
Concerning Herod’s speech about John Baptist (see Matt. xiv. 2 and 
Mark vi. 14): 
ectev Se Hpwdns * lwavyny eyo amexeparioa ' ts b¢ extiv ovtas mept 
ov axouw Totavta; Kat etnter tev avTov. 

For ts 8 eat ovros Evan 248 substitutes ris eat ovros alone, 
dropping Se, but withee: ‘quis est hic,” and: “‘ hie quis est” by bfilqr 
(ef. 243 >is Se ovtos eott). With the Latins without copula go syr cu 
sin pers and diatess (and sah 1/5 boh**). 

The diatess interlards Luke ix. 9 between Matt xiv. 12° and xiv. 13°, 
but is clearly from Luke, avoiding Matt xiv. 2 here. See diatess § xviii. 
20 and its beginning. 

Alone, with aeth, Evan 157 substitutes ovv for Se in Luke ix. 9. 


Luke ix. 13. Of the loaves and fishes and the multitudes : 

Eire S¢ mpos avtous * Aote autos vpes dayew. Ot de ecrov * Oux 
eLow piv TAEtov  TEVTE apTor Kat Svo LXOvES, EL NTE TOpEVOEYTES NYELS 
ayopacwper ets TavTa Tov Aaov TovTov Bpwpata. 

157 (with Paris” ets tov Aaov tantum) and pers with boh'™™ omit es 
TwavTa, 


Luke ix. 20. Of Christ’s enquiry for the testimony of the apostles: 
Eure de avrois * vers be tiva pe Neyere eivat ; 
604 omits pe AeyeTe exvas altogether, alone with Dial. As to syr sin 
it is mutilated, but Burkitt says “there is not space for all the words.” 
Pers, observe, slightly alters, saying ‘‘ Vos de me quid dicitis.”” 
Some aeth mss I believe omit pe eva. 


Luke x. 5. Of the salutation due on entering a house: 
Eis nv & ay oixtay ecoepynabe mpwtov NeyeTe * Expnyy tw otk TovTw. 
Paris” and D? with d* r Orig and Tert™™ omit mpwrov. (Tert™™ : 
‘quam introissent domum pacem ei dicere.’’) 


Luke xii. 34. Concerning the proverb of the heart and its treasure : 
oTov ‘yap eativ o Onaaupos vuwv, exet Katy Kapota uUpwY eoTat. 
ec omits estat outright with Sod'?. 


448 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Of the Greeks LA substitute eorw. 

D and some place it between exe: and xaz. 

The word may not originally have completed the sentence at all, 
which is complete without the second verb. Tischendorf, as so often, 
does not report c** here. 

The reason for which I emphasise the witness of c*™ even when alone 
is that elsewhere this ms lends its voice to very powerful minority 
groups, as at xix. 23 —«as init. Of course c is quite a critical codex as 
may be seen in its graphic efedOew for ehdew at Luke xiv. 20 fin. or at 
Luke xxiv. 32 jin. . 

(Cf. ¢* at Luke xiii. 30 o: exxarot pro etow ecxarot, Paris supplies 
ot but has exow which c** lacks.) 


Luke xiii. 15. 
Of our Lord's personal application in his answer to the dpy:ouvayayy 
as to healing on the sabbath: 

Arrexpi0n ovy avtw o Kuptos, xat extrev, Trroxprta, exactos vuav Te 
caBBatw ov duvet tov Bovy avrou 4 Tov ovov ato THs fatvys Kat aTayayav 
motile ; TauTny de, Ouyatepa ABpaap ovaay... 

The authorities cannot agree whether our Lord said varoxperd! or 
inroxptrai! and are very much divided. As the record says amexpiby obv 
air@ 6 Kupios «al elev (and not dmexp. oly 6 Kupios nal elev abr) it 
may well be that the less personal troxpitai and not izoxpird was the 
apostrophe. 

But c'* alone shows us a blank here, and has neither. 

Tisch again fails to exhibit here the omission of c*. Sabatier calls 
attention to Tertullian“* which (although non liquet) has no introduction 
and begins “‘ Unusquisque vestrum sabbatis non solvit” . .. quoting in full 
to worife. Certainly cf and Tert should be coupled and mentioned 
together. 


Luke xiv. 8/9. Of the place at the wedding feast: 


Myzore evtipotepos cou  Kexdnpevos um’ avtTou Kat EAOwy o cE Kat 
avtov Kadecas, epet cot * Aosg tourw , ToTov*... 
Here 157, with copt and syr, supplies tov before towov. This may 
have been lost immensely early. Observe aeth: “‘ Cede huic personae ” 
(‘‘ the place ”’ understood). 


Luke xvi. 12. 
What Christ said in his comment on the parable of the unjust steward : 
Kai e: ev tw addotpiw tictot ove eyeveoOe, To upeTEpoy Tes UpLY 
Swcet; 
157 and ¢ +1 with Tert™*™ are definite as to the substitution of evo 
for vperepov. 
(npetepov by BL Sod** and Evst 21 Orig.) 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 449 


Luke xvii. 23. What action to take when the Son of Man is announced : 
Kaz epavow ver * [Sov woe 4 cdou exet, un aernre unde Stwknte. 
157 with syr and pers omits ynde &iwEnte. (Cf. B and sah.) 


Luke xviii. 2. 
Of a judge in a certain city and the importunate widow : 
Aeyav * Kpirns Tes Wy ev TLV TOAEL 2.» 

e* and o** with pers" omit ts; but then syr sin thereagainst omits 
tt, perhaps for the same purpose of destroying the pleonastic “ pair”: 
“A certain judge there was in a certain city.” But note that the 
important Ms Paris” also omits ts with c**. 

(Some have 77 for revt, and 83 has ev tive Tn Todet.) 

Sah very simply ‘‘ A judge in a city” with two indefinite articles : 
OCKPITHe aft OeMOAIC, and bok also, which does not however trans- 
literate the Greek words. 


Luke xviii. 9. : 
Of the introductory clause as to the parable of the publican and the 
pharisee in prayer : 

Eure Se KaL pos TiVasS TOUS meTotOoras ep €avuToOls OTL €ict Stxaror Kat 
efovBevovvtas tovs Aormovs * Tv mapaBornv tavtyy © AvOpwrot dvo 
aveRnoav ets to tepov mpocevEacbat .. . 

c** leaves out r7v rapaBornv ravtqv. So does D™ and d. No others 
apparently. But observe that the syriacs sah and pers bring it in quite 
early in a peculiar place and order before zpos twas, ‘‘ And he was saying 
this similitude (or parable) against (certain) folk that trust in them- 
Selves ...,” while the Latins, even those which have similitudinem for 
parabolam, keep the Greek order. 

Tischendorf should certainly have mentioned ce. He only says: 
“Dom.” 


Luke xxii. 15. 
Concerning the last supper and the mention of the Passover: 
Kat evrev mpos avrovs * ev:Ouyia emibupnoa TOVTO To TaaXa aryery 
ps vpwv tpo Tov pe travety. 

In this very important passage (uncomplicated by the accounts in 
Matthew and Mark) the noteworthy cursive 71 with vg? and syr cu sin 
bok with Tert™* very definitely: Concupiscentia concupivi Pascha edere 
vobiscum antequam patiar, completely suppress tovto or hoc, against the 
other Greeks and Latins, against syr pesh and the diatess (quoting Luke 
xxii. 14/16 continuously). The only Latins besides vg? to throw light on 
the matter are c and Hilary. In c “hoc” is present but ‘ Pascha’”’ 
absent; thus also in Hilim Ps: desiderio cupivi Hoc manducare, but 
Hil? neglects hoe and introduces Pascha without hoc: “ desiderio 

26 








450 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


desideravit cum discipulis Pascha manducare.” Possibly in e’s copy a 
mark was present for the deletion of hoc which that ms applied to Pascha. 
Tischendorf and Soden completely ignore the omission of tov7o, and again 
refuse to let us enter with them the arcanum of textual criticism. 


Luke xxiii. 15. 
Concerning Pilate’s speech to the assembled multitude about our 
Lord’s apparent guiltlessness : 


. averepa yap vuas mpos avtov [al. averepwpev yap avtov pos 
nyas] nar ov ovdev aftov Gavatou ects Tempaypevov aut. 
Here :Sov is omitted by e [I wonder if this should not be c*"] and 
D* d with vgg?® [hiat r.] syr cu sin pers and diatess. 

: Tisch and Soden report this because D d also omit. I introduce it 
“to show the omission upheld by one cursive. The diatess quotes con- 
tinuously Luke xxiii. 4/16. There is an Sov in the previous verse 
xxiii. 14 not modified by syr cu sin pers, but for xat tdov eyw there D 
writes: xayw Se, and d: et ego autem, and diatess also without ecce 
there, 


Luke xxiv. 39. 

Of Christ’s request for identification after the resurrection : 

ISere tas xetpas pov Kat Tous wobas pov OTL GuTOS eyo eit * Ynrdady- 
carte pe xa ere’ ort Tveuvpa capKxa Kat ooTea ouK exer KADWS cue DewpetTe 
exovra. 

The Greek cursive 300 omits avros with a r? 1. Syrr copt omit 
avtos altogether, while the rest vary the order and form of autos eyw eps 
considerably. (Pers omits altogether). avzos probably came in for 
emphasis from the margin. Soden adds *", presumably ‘*! = 4 (Paris 
nat. 84) for plain omission of avtos, and indeed an addition to the basic 
text would be quite likely here. 

(Soden, as usual, neglects the witness previously reported for omission, 
viz. Evan. 300.) 


John i. 15. 
Concerning the wording of John Baptist’s witness to Jesus: 


Twavens waptuper mept avtov, Kat Kexpaye Aeywr * Outos nV ov ExTroV* 
O omicw pov epxopevos, eumrpoaer pov yeyovev. - 

814 (= Sod“) reads eore for nv. The Latins vary between est (a bc 
efqrmaur vgg*) as (syr), and erat (h 8 [hiat d] vgg™" Iren Aug), but 
Evst 54 omits outright. 

This is interesting because N alone of Greeks omits ov exrov following, 
with arab, as if between qv and ov ewov a mark had perhaps been set 
indicating omission, and & had omitted ov evrov and not yy. 

The bohairic really seems to omit mv (xe pat OH ETAIXOG 
eo RuTe). 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 451 


Jobn ii. 19. Of the rebuilding of the temple (of His body): 
AmexpiOy o Inaous xat evmev avtors Avoate Tov vaoy TovToy Kat 
ev TPLaW NMEpats eyEepw auToOV. 
Evst 47 reads with Ignatius b:a tprov nyepev. 


John v. 27. Of the Father’s great gifts to the Son: 
... Kat e€ovorav eSweev avtw Kat xptow mow... 
Now edwxev is omitted outright only by Hust 47 and diatess, making 
edwxev of verse 26 serve here also. Observe that the syriac and pers 


substitute fecit for dedit in verse 27. Neither Tisch nor Soden notice 
these readings. 


John vi. 22. Concerning the departure of the disciples : 

Ty eravptov o oxdos 0 eoTyKas Tepay THS Oaracans Sav ott TAOLApLOY 
aXXo ove DY Exet Et UN EV ExeLVO ELS 0 EveRNGAY oF paOnTaAL avTOU, Kat OTL ov 
auveondOe tors pabyras avtov o Ingous ets To WAOLaptoY, AAA povot ot 
pabnras avtou arndOov. 

Neglecting other variations, observe that the syriacs ¢ with pers omit. 
the last clause, as do the diatessaron and Evan 220 and Evst 222 (z*). 
Tischendorf mentions 220 but neglects z**, while Soden calmly ignores. 
both Greek manuscripts. 

There is no break in diatess between verses 22 and 23 (proceeding 
with 23/60 continuously). Observe that the Latins (so intimately 
connected with the syr and diatess) apparently do not recognise this 
omission. 

(S 56-58-61 ff, | omit azndOor in this clause.) 


John vi. 23. 
Of the ships from Tiberias, whether they came, had come, or were there: 
AdXa@ Se nAGe wAorapia ex TiBepiados eyyus tov romov omou epayou 
TOY apTov evyaptatncavtos Tou Kupcov. 

892 and Sod“+ with the diatess have w for n\Oe. 

Some have »\Jov for ne placing it in various differing positions. 

N has ered Mortar ovv tav wAocov for adda Se ndOe (or 7AGov) TAOLapLA 
and ovons instead of tov rorov. D has adAwv wrotapiwy edPovtwyr (a aliae 
naviculae venerunt). C/.b7: et cum supervenissent aliae naves, cf. syr cu. 

The vg has: aliae vero supervenerunt naves. (Supervenerunt is 
favoured by the Latins, but not by a de f.) 

Among all this variation, 892 Sod" diatess substitute nv. It seems 
to me that, including this yy, it all savours of retranslation. 











{ Syr sin is said to be illegible here, but syr cu agrees with syr peshk and pers to 
omit. (Pers doubtless replaces syr stn.) 


2462 





452 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


John vi. 42. 
Of the murmuring Jews’ speech concerning the parentage of our Lord 
and of his strange speech about his descent from Heaven : 

Kae eXeyov ovx outos exriv Inoous 0 vies Iwond, ov quets ovdapev Tov 
TWATEpa Kat THY BYTEPa;, Was ovv evyet OUTOS OTL EX TOU OUpavOoU KaTa- 
BeBnxa ; — 

There is found to be a difference of opinion as to whether ovy or vuy 
should follow ras. 

BCTW Sod doh arm syr hier Ath supply vuv. 

N and D on the other hand, with the other Greeks, most Latins and 
sah 4/7, prefer our. . 

The peshitta does neither, but prefixes xat. 

The editors are strangely enough agreed here; Tisch and Hort on the 
strength of BCT, and Soden on the strength of BCT and the additional 
W Sod™, print ws vv. But are they right? Does not perhaps little 
v* here hold the key, which cursive Ms writes ras tantum ? 

The point is that syr cw sin and pers with arab and the latins ae 
and sah 8/7 are agreed to omit in the same way as v“", merely saying as. 
Still the editors might he right; but when we find Paris” backing up 
v™, the syriacs, ae, the persian, the arabic, and sah 3/7 for omission we 

‘must pause to ask the reason why.° 

Since therefore once more N and B are not agreed (and aeth boh™'™ 
vg?E conflate) does not Paris’ hold (with v*") the true base behind NB, 
and are not syr pers with sah 3/7 and Paris*’ v“* the purveyors of the’ 
“true text”? . 


John vi. 64. Of Christ’s speech to the disciples on a certain occasion : 
AA aow e& vpwr tives of ov TisTEVoVeL,. : 

Here tives is omitted by 157 slone, and indeed may well be an 
addition. Tischendorf, recognising this, chronicles the omission, but 
Soden does not think it worth while, although a reference to syr sin and 
aeth appears to confirm it. Observe here that the order of most: «£ vpov 
tives (80 also syr cu) is varied by STX°3 and some very important cursives 
(plus syr pesh hier) to reves e€ vumv. 





John vi. 70. The apostrophe as to a traitor being among the twelve: 
Amexpi0n avtots o Inaous * Ovw eyo vyas tous Swdexa eferefapny 
kar e& up eis btaBodos eott. 

Evan 28 omits tovs dwédexa. Cf. syr cu sin. 

Note that 185 (Sod and a very critical codex) omits efedefapny, 
having evidently mistaken the word to be deleted. Thus again 185 
alone omits ef before vswv, intending probably to omit eis with N*; and 
thus 2°* omits «as e€ vywr, retaining eis. 

John xiii. 14/15. 
Of Christ’s example in the washing of the feet: 
Ex ovv eyw eva vpev tous modas,o xupios Kat o Si8acKahos, Kat 


EPILOGUE. IMPORTANT CURSIVE TESTIMONY. 453 


vpers opecdere AAANAWY VETTEL Tous Todas. Trroderyya yap edwxa vp», 
tva, Kadws eyw ETroinoa Upuy, Kat Upels TroLNTE. =< 

Now this yap is omitted by 604 and the very important cursive c’”. 
The saying is more stately thus. Not “For I have given you an 
example,” but very simply and majestically: “I (your Lord and Master) 
have given you an example.” 

Does syr sin omit? No, it has ée. Do any others? Apparently 
none except the diatess, for Soden says ‘om yap Ta I* 183/188," Now 
the diatess is a good witness here, for it quotes continuously John xiii. 1/20. 
‘There are no other witnesses then for this stately phrase? Yes there are, 
and important ones too. Soden’s notes in such cases are too maddening 
for words, for when he supplements Tischendorf (as here, Tisch neglecting 
the omission of c™) he cannot even get the matter right. 

Observe then that syr hier® also omit. Is that all? No, for pers 
(wonderful witness!) also omits [against syr pesh and sin]. Is that all? 
No, not yet, for d, that other extraordinary witness, also omits, against 
D* opposite. Such opposition between d and D® invariably means a 
great deal. I discover these omissions of von Soden by chance, but. 
Sabatier had already called attention to the reading of d. Stadents 
cannot possibly see these things in Tischendorf or Soden. Aeth™- 
renders “ Quia exemplum dedi vobis’’ without yap which the Coptic 
versions hold. Is this quite all? No, because Aphraates opposes syr 
sin and also omits yap altogether. For omission then, instead of 
Tatian GOL and c*™ as Soden tells us, we have: 604 co d pers syr 
hier® diatess Aphraates and (aeth). 


Jobn xix. £0. Of the custom of the Jews at burial: 
Enxafov ovy to cwpa tov Incou nat edncav avro ofovtois peta Tov 
apwpatav xaBws eos ectt rots lovdarors evtagraterv, 
Paris”, with sah boh (aeth), omits ecte. Sod (ed. B & G) Sod 
omit eBos. 
Observe NW Greg*"* substitute qu for este. (Seat eGos X°185 4c 
Fn@ ¢f.e. 


John xx. 15, Of the risen one’s speech to Mary in the garden: 
Aeyes avty o Inoous * Iuvar, te Kracets; teva Snrets; Execvn Soxovea 
ott 0 KNTOUpOS Eate Neyer avTW Kupte. . . 
28, with syr siz and dimma, omits o Incous. 





So, among the Latins, observe : 
Jobn xxi. 13. 


Of Christ's post-resurrection action at the lake-side : 
Epxerar (our 0) Incous xat XapBaver tov aptov cat didwowv avtors. 
e with syr sin omits this epyerat. 
c reads merely: Tune Jesus accepit ... 
syr sin merely: Et accepit Jesus... 








454 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Luke vi. 45. : 

o ayabos avOpwmos ex tov ayaBov Oncavpov rns Kxapdias avrou 
mpogepet To ayaBov * Kat o Tovnpos avOpwros ex Tov Tovnpov Oncaupou 77S 
xapSias avrou mpodepe To Tovnpov. 

- Here ff, alone elides the first rys xapSias, writing: Bonus homo de 
bono d'ensauro suo proferet bonum ... thus alone agreeing with Dial®, 


Mark vi. 2. 
Kat yevopevou caRBarou npEato ev rn cvvaywyn Si8acKew* Kat Toddot 
. axovovtes efemAnacovto, Aeyovtes: ToOey ToVTW TaUVTA ;.... 

As against axovovres of textus receptus supported by NABCW unc? 
aPland df f gisilq78vgg with audientes, DSFHLA®II Sod some 
minn, including some interesting manuscripts (and a with cum audissent), 
-prefer axovcavtes, but b c e¢ have neither but exhibit a blank. It is 
eminently a place, as will be seen upon close inspection, where a word 
could naturally be added, and the fact that the authorities vary as to its 
form or tense shows that it may be an early addition. The Greek ms 
W would probably have omitted with b ¢ ¢ had it continued this 
recension beyond Chapter V. I mention the example particularly 
because ‘W ceases to convey this type of text before the end of ch. V. 
[Hiant syr"", sed habent syr?" ™"* pers et diatess]. Cf. Luci. 66, p. 445. 

Lastly, consider Matt. iv. 1 —vaoe tov mvevparos 892 P* soli, where 
the order is changed by NK 157 syr aeth, suggesting something amiss ; 
and Mark ii. 11 —oos Aeyw eyetpe by Paris” alone, while W 40 46 61 252 
y™ Sod“® b ¢ ¢ omit co: Acyw, and r, sah 1/2 omit eyerpe, and & [not 
reported by Tisch or Sod] varies the order >eyeipe coi Neyw [Hiant syr™ "J. 


Von Sopen’s New Testament, issued July 1913. 


The crowning volume of von Soden’s labours, viz. the New Testament 
volume itself, reached me after nearly all of Part I, of this essay was set 
up. I have used it for Part II. although this necessitated resetting a 
considerable amount of type, but for Part I. I was afraid I would not be 
able to use his work except occasionally in St. Luke and St. John, 
but I have managed to work in most of the evidence throughout. 

I shall attempt no thorough review of his system or of his work 
at this place. Occasional notes will be found where it is desirable to 
correct his apparatus or to supplement my own. 

I said at the beginning of this essay that the readings of Westcott 
and Hort, that is those of the ms B, had been generally accepted in 
England and nearly as much so in Germany. I am told that in Germany 
this is not the case. Let us look at a passage in von Soden’s new 
edition for information. 

Upon the strength of B, Westcott-Hort have printed at Matthew xiii. 4 
Kat éXOovta ra werewa Katehayey avra, instead of cas ndOev (or rOov) ra 

merewa Kat xatepayev avra. B had support only from fMatthsel Fer 





EPILOGUE. VON SODEN’S NEW TESTAMENT. 455 


y* (not mentioned by Tisch) and fam 13 but they add tov ovpavov after 
TETELVA. 

I was surprised to find von Soden follow suit for this reading of 
eXOovta ta wetTewa (—xat). His note on the evidence is not absolutely 
clear, but one is to infer that besides B, these other mss have been found 
to have the reading, viz. 050 (ms at Tiflis related to the D text, which 
latter here has the ordinary text) 5 30 (= 4, otherwise more related to &, 
which does not have it) « 1444 (Athos, Pantel. 101) e 1413 (Athos, 
Pantocr. 34) e 1833 (Athos, Pantocr. 60) ¢ 1216 (Berlin 55, Greg 659) ; I 
suppose a little iota must stand for family 13, but he does not mention 
the Mss by name nor do we know definitely whethcr the whole group 
of twelve Mss: 


13-69-124~-174-230-346-543-788-826-837-983-Serres 
Ser. 556 
has the B reading. 

Scholz and Tisch after fam 13 had said “ ali,” but von Soden’s list 
does not bear this out, his witnesses being mss unknown to Scholz and 
Tischendorf. ‘Tischendorf neglected to mention the other witnesses 
represented by “ail.” They seem to be confined to the Lectionary class 
and are f of Matthaei (Hust 49) H** (Hust 150) y (Hust 259). It would 
have been better for vow Soden to mention these additional witnesses, as 
his choice of reading needs defence. It presupposes, like Hort’s, that 7AGov 
ta qeteva grew out of a basic eAGovta rereva, but then B has ed@ovra 
ta metewa, and how account for the suppression of «a: seqg.? If B and 
the others read eX@ovra tetewa there would be some force in thinking 
that the other readings had sprung from this, but does not eAfovra ra 
vretewa merely indicate misreading or revision. 

Where are SL and D and W and Z? Opposed to B. Where does 
Origen stand? Opposed to B. [This von Soden’s notes do not indicate, 
as he merely repcrts AK (Kovvy) for the regular reading.] Where are 33 
aud 892? Opposed to B. And so are all the rest of the mss, and the 
versions. I mention this to show that B is still regarded too highly in 
Germany as 4 basic or neutral text, and von Soden’s text probably per- 
petuates an error of B and of his small following. 

There is no trace of this in any of the Latins, and ¢e /, both extant 
here, support the usual Greek text against B. 

—xat is however found in sah and boh 1/2‘after the coptie manner. 
‘Came the birds (of Heaven), they ate them.” 

Is this the secret? The other versions do not omit xa:. Must we 
trace this matter also to coptic influence on B? Very possibly; and B’s 
forerunner, not liking 7A@ov...«catepayov without copula in Greek, 
although the coptic admits of it, changed the first Greek aorist to the 
participle. 

I claim that the versions have been unduly magnified sometimes to 
support a Greek readiug, but a’so, as in the present case, unduly relegated 





456 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


to the background when their joint testimony is of considerable value. 
If von Soden had properly grouped his evidence, and instead of baying 

K gegen H* ete. 
he had said 

K, [x yell et latt syr verss et Patres gegen H® etc. 
we would have seen the real evidence. 

Had he intimated that sah and part of bok omitted the copula «az, 
while holding Sov, we should also have got a glimmer of the probable 
reason for the B reading, but he is silent on ‘this point. 

This is not intended to be unfriendly criticism of von Soden, but 
only meant to indicate the lines along which we must work for a true 
grasp of the problems involved before printing new texts. After going 
through von Soden’s apparatus to supplement my own, I have however 
come to very serious and disparaging conclusions as to his work in 
general. His notes are exceedingly inaccurate, his text is not founded 
upon any consistent method of using evidence, and I regret to say that 
he has repeatedly invented Scripture in his text without manuscript or 
Patristic authority. The proof to this effect shall be submitted separately, 
but some of it will be found noticed in scattered places in these volumes. 


As to the Kouwy. 


There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns . 
the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations in B are 
few in number and probably less than in most Mss. That is hardly so. 
If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a ms true to the Church 
type let him examine Maitthaei’s k, a most beautiful and neat Ms, one 
of our very early cursives, and in this ms will be found a true exponent 
of the Ko}. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, 
and yet but little difference is to be found between k and the textus 
receptus, while B and his group differ infinitely more among themselves 
at @ period much more remote. 

The Koivy probably preserves ‘“‘ the true text" at Luke xxiii. 8: 

nu yap Dedwy e€ cxavov (—xpovov) Sev avtov ... or, as reported by 
W [teste Lake] 241 Evst 48 49 54 63°49 2 H*': ay yap e€ cxavov 
(~xpovov) Gerwy iSetv avtov. .. 


This is a peculiar construction, but, being the more difficult or 
idiomatic without xpovov, is probably to be preferred. 

Soden here abandons the chief uncials, which have e£ txavwv ypover, 
and prints e£ «cavov Oehwv without giving any authority for the K (Kow}) 
which he quotes, for the K has >dedwv e€ txavov. 

It so happens however that not only W [teste Lake contra Soden] 
agrees with Soden’s text of e€ exavov OeAwv, with six lectionaries, but 


EPILOGUE. THE Koei}, LUKE XXIII. 8/9. 457 


that 241 (Matthaei’s k), the very MS under consideration above, does 
this also. I wonder if Soden has stumbled on the “true text’’ here as 
confirmed by 241. For notice that the genius of all the versions 
requires the expression of ypovov. Hence the versions very likely 
reflected on our earliest Greek uss as seen already so often elsewhere, 
and led to the addition of ypovov, or substitution of txavwv xpovwv, while 
the maligned tertus receptus may hold the base here, and Soden and 
241 preserve the true order! It is more than curious, for Soden appears 
to do so quite innocently, and ignorantly of the true evidence as to the 
Kou), 

Winer has a brief reference to the passage on p. 459 (English edition, 
1882), but Afoulton in his translator’s note 3, while saying ‘‘ In Luke xxiii. 8 
quoted above in the text, e& :xavw» xpevev is no doubt the true reading” 
goes quite beyond his province, and is merely bowing to the authority 
of the company of NBD(L)T etc., whereas there is no such certainty 
about “the true text” here, and the indications seem to me to point the 
other way, and xpovov more likely to have crept in than to have slipped 
out or to have been suppressed in an “‘ Antioch ”’ revision. 

As this brings up again Turner's ex parte obiter dictum of the oldest 
Mss against the later ones (“which issue will never have to be tried 
again”) I make free to go into the case as to exavos a little more fully 
than Winer or Moulton (Blass is silent), for it is a very pretty test 
passage indeed. 

Now that we have seen that the “‘ oldest ” mss were affected already 
by the versions or by the Greek text underlying the versions (whichever 
way the critics prefer to have it put), we can the more readily see the 
bearing of the present case as to the untrustworthiness of the “ oldest” 
Greek Mss in just such a case, and realize perhaps that, although 
mutually supporting each other, NBD(L)T 157 ¢ d sah +T' Sod™™ 892 
Paris” Laura4™ are wrong, and that the Kowy and 241 are right at 
Luke xxiii. 8. 

The justification for this view is to be found in the classical example 
at Acts xx. 11 where the writer (doubtless St. Luke) in telling of St. Paul’s 
long preaching at Troas, after the revival of Eutychus, says: 

“avaBas S€ kat KNacas Tov apToy Kat yevoapevos, Eh LKavov TE outhnoas 
aypt avyns outws efnGev.” 

Here “until break of day” qualifies ef txavoy sufficiently to give it 
its true Lucan meaning. 

This ef ixavov then at Acts xx. 11 (not noted by Winer) is the 
complement of e£ cxavov in Luke xxiii. 8. 

Besides, if we look further, we find that cxavos is used by the writer 
of the third Gospel and of the Acts no less than 25 times, whereas it is 
found elsewhere only six times in St. Paul’s Epistles and three times in 
St. Matthew and St. Mark. 


458 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


That St. Luke used sxavov without ypovov in xxiii. 8 is probable, . 
because he so thoroughly understood the technical value of the word in 
Greek. Thus at Acts xxii. 6 besides using ¢ws cxavov of the “ great” 
light (an ‘eafolding’ light, see Acts ix. 3) at St. Paul's conversion, at 
Acts xx. 37 cxavos Se eyevero xravOpos wavtwy “But they all set up a 
great weeping,” at Luke xxiii. 9 (in close proximity to the passage under 
review) ernpwra Se avtov ev Aoyots exavots “ But he questioned him in 
many words” (a sufficiency of words), we find in Acts xvii. 9 of the 
taking of bond or security from Jason : 

“ cat NaBovtes To txavoy,” simply, 
which is the correct technical term (not referred to by Winer or Blass). 
Therefore when we read at: 

Acts xii. 12 ov noav cxaver ovynOporcpevor Kat TpocevyYopevot 
or ,, xix. 19 cxavor Se... tas BiBrous xatexatov evwrioy TavTwv 
we understand that many were gathered together, and that many burned 
their magical books, and not only that certain did so. 

So again at Luke xxii. 38, of the two swords before the betrayal, 
our Lord’s comment is reported thus by St. Luke: ‘“o & eev avtois 
txavoy ect,” That is to say not only ‘they are sufficient” but ‘it 
is plenty.” (Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 6 exavov tw torovtw 1 emittpia avtn). Re- 
turning to Luke xxiii. 8/9 observe that we meet with the use of cxavos 
alone in both verses to signify “ much” or “ many”: 

xxiii. 8. O d¢ Hpwhns tdwv tov Incovv exapn Atav * nv yap Oedwv c£ txavov 
Serv avtov.... 

xxiii. 9. emnpwta Se avtov ev Noyors txavots ‘ avtos Se ovdev arrexpwato 
auvTa. . 

The genius of the versions then permits of the translation of «xavois 
in verse 9 by “‘many,” but requires in verse 8 the addition of “time” 
to txavov. The versions then. can only be used to trace the matter in a 
subsidiary sense. 

To e& cxavov HMX} IT minn** and W add ypovov as most Latins, 
the Syriacs, Aeth and Boh. : 

While e£ txavwv xpovwy is substituted by NBDTT' Sod™ 157 892 
Paris” Laura4™ and ¢ dof the Latins: ‘‘a (or de) multis temporibus.” 
Thus also the armenian apparently, and the sahidic arTN Qennos— 
Sorsoeiy (against boh toxen ovseHyy Mocponoc). And ARTAA 
une reli’ most Greek cursives have with the textus receptus Oedwv c& 
ixavou, While Soden’s text prints ef txavov Oehwv. He recognised then that 
Xpoveu or xpovev had probably come in from the outside, but in adopting 
this order I bardly think that he recognised that it is supported by ¥ 
[teste Lake contra Soden] and by 241 Evst 48 49 54 63" and 2** H“. 

I have not mentioned L. That ms, while having ef :xavwv xpovor, 
drops the GeAwv, which is necessary here, and affords a slight clue that 


} X has the order: ef txavov xpovov deAwv. 


EPILOGUE, THE Kowyj. LUKE xxiit. 8/9. 459 


there may bave been a mark set in text or margin for redeletion of ypovev 
which mark was misunderstood. Some difficulty also confronted the Latin 
Ms a, for it omits altogether, having only: eraé enim cupiens videre illum. 
That the four great cursives 157 892 Paris’ Laura4™ go with 
NBD(L)TT' Sod, and that ‘I supports ‘I, and Sod supports D, with 
the adhesion of the sahidic, shows that this is a fixed reading early. Yet 
it is absolutely circumscribed as to cursives by the consent only of the 
four named as far as I know. , 

The rest of the documents evidently lacked ypovov or xpover, for of 
the uncials which add ypovov, viz. HMXIIW, most have strong Latin 
affiliations, certainly X and W, and the forty or fifty cursives which add 
are a mized lot and some add only in the margin. 

It is therefore an equally fixed tradition outside of these—that is to 
say with the remaining eleven uncials headed by A and with the great 
majority of cursives—that ypovov was not in the original text. 

It is just here that WY [teste Lake] and that remarkable exponent of 
the Kowj, viz. 241 (Matthaet’s beautiful tenth-century cursive k), with 
six lectionaries as named above, give Soden’s order of ef txavov Gedov 
(without ypovov). 

The textus receptus then positively denies xpovov a place. This, 
according to Tischendorf, Hort and Moulton etc., simply shows that the 
textus receptus was “revised.” But was it? 

Have we not clearly indicated by the undesigned coincidences cited 
from elsewhere in Luke and Acts that cxavov without xpovov would be 
eminently Lucan, that the revisers of Antioch (if there were any) would 
not be any more “classical” than Luke himself, but that more probably 
Alexandria (to prevent any ambiguity) not merely added ypovev, but 
changed ef cxavov to ef txavwv ypovwy, and that this was done at so 
early a date as to mislead Moulton and other followers of Tischendorf 
and Hort into thinking that it is “the true text.” It would certainly 
have been passing strange for ‘‘ Antioch’ to change the plural e€ txavwr 
xpovwr to the singular ef txavov without xpovov. 

At the end of our journey we can now afford to call attention to 
such 8 passage. No matter whether a consensus of NB(L)TT'D Sod™ 
157 892 Paris” Daura4! (Sod!) read one way, their reading is 
improbable as an original one. Merz is silent on this passage, but 
Soden, notwithstanding additional testimony of T’ Sod 892 Paris” 
Laura‘! (Sod'%’), all unknown to Tischendorf and Hort, is content to 
oppose NB(L)DT 157 and these added authorities, and not only content 
to oppose them, but, unconsciously apparently, gives us the reading and 
order of 241 :— 

ny yap ¢& txavou Oedwv dev autor... 
and vindicates the Kowy as reported by its best representative (as I claim 
it to be) the sts 241. This ms it will be observed gives the order of NBT 
without the addition. 








460 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


The reading of 241 and the Kow needs no defence, whereas the 
‘‘Egyptian” reading has to be explained. I stand once more on the 
“harder” or ‘‘ simpler” reading which I believe to be Lucan. 

[In my review of Soden in J.T.S. April 1914 I have criticised Soden, 
not for adopting the reading of 241, but for failing to see that he had 
done s0.] 


Merx, Ramsay, AnD SopEn. 


Adalbert Merz, daring but thoroughly competent scholar, has arrived 
at the same conclusions that I have through an entirely independént 
channel of thought. His ‘Die vier kanonischen Evangelien’ (3 vols.) 
should be read by everybody who professes to understand these studies. 
This is a thorough digest of the Sinaitic Syriac with its bearing on a 
foundation text. His conclusions, expressed in no uncertain terms, are 
that 8 and B are thoroughly unreliable witnesses as exponents of a 
neutral and pre-syrian text. 

There are flaws in syr sin, and in many passages we are still seeking 
for more light, but Merz has placed the study upon a higher and a 
simpler plane, and I could wish that von Soden had shown a willingness 
to sit at Merz’ feet rather than air his own exceedingly questionable 
eclecticism. Soden opposes Merz at Luke xii. 14, Mark xvi. 4, where he 
certainly should have bowed to his countryman’ 8 greater skill. 

For assistance in controlling syr sin we turn to the Latin witnesses 
and more particularly to the Codex Bezae. I have considered its text, 
in something like its present form, to be older than a.D. 200. Sir William 
Ramsay, attacking the problem from yet quite another standpoint, has 
arrived at the conclusion, from his studies in Asia Minor, that as regards 
the Acts we cannot date the corrector of D d later than approximately 
A.D. 150-160, and that the foundation text is much older. 

I recognise one or two very early correctors in the Codex Bezae, 
acquainted with Syriac, which of course complicates the problem of the 
ultimate base, but Bezae, being free from extraneous text influences, has 
a large value when used in connection with the Syriac documents. 
Occasionally we find the persian, with or without the armenian, suggesting 
the lost syriac base, not present even in syr sin or syr cu. This has still 
to receive scientific treatment. 

‘When we reach von Soden, instead of finding an advance on Merz 
and Ramsay's studies, we find a different state of things altogether. We 
find that Soden is in another class as an investigator and a student, and 





+ His mind worked with great rapidity. Thus he hardly ever italicises or places 
within inverted commas the frequent Latin or English or French quotations which occur 
to him as he writes. He quotes, for instance, ‘ Facts are stubborn things,” or “ Be bold, 


be not too bold,” in the middle of a German sentence without any indication that these’ 


are quotations and in another language. 


EPILOGUE. MERX, RAMSAY, AND SODEN. 461 


that his vision is circumscribed and Alexandrian. His text is a real 
mixture and quite unscientific. He is incapable of arguing on the lines 
of Merz, and apparently too much of a schoolman to see with Ramsay's 
sharp and clear vision. The truth is that some half-informed people of 
an Alexandrian turn of mind, who have never made a study of the 
idiosyncrasies of documents (except at second-hand), have stampeded the 
Professors into a belief that the wltimam verbum in textual criticism has 
been said,t and that the wltima ratio has been reached. Soden suggests an 
Alexandrian redivivus such as Hort was. Soden’s text is so thoroughly 
Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of ms evidence. 
Among other things, it favours the imperfect over the aorist, just as the 
Alexandrians did, and favours the historic present on countless occasions, 
see Matt. xv. 12 etc. efe. As to the imperfect, observe Matt. ix. 9, 
nkodovdet (pro nxoArovOncev) Soden following #7106 [6 266 qe 1266 1853 1143, 
Yet two verses below, at ix. 11, Sod‘ refuses edeyov (pro evrov) against 
a larger combination, viz. “ce all Hes 76 (4) I* 600 94 ne 167 fb 1266 pb 1043 13853 1416 
4841 Gt vg,” including this time not only the Latins, but the very mss 
followed above, which I have underlined, and the second combination 
includes BCL Cyril actually missing from the first, where only & of the 
Hf tamily is present. (In the second combination Soden should have 
said “ere. dk” after “tt vg.”’) 

Could anything be less scientific ? 

So, also, as to the partitive genitive. Observe several places, and 
note Luke ii. 87, ove adistato tov tepov, Soden with Hort, and the small 
group BE*LEW 131 604 Paris”, to which add of Soden’s codices only 
Sod", against everything else for azo tov tepou (except D* rou vaov). 
Even & has ex tov sepov. If ® found the preposition absent from his 
copy, as is probable from his adopting ex and not azo, he undoubtedly 
referred to Latin or Coptic or Syriac, and added the ex from those 
sources. If he had consulted other Greek copies he would have added 
azo. This is a pretty place as to my contention as to X and polyglot 
influences. Hort at any rate had the merit of simplifying matters 
by elevating Codex B to the dignity of an all-powerful arbitrator in 
any complicated passages. Von Soden’s text, while evidently enjoying 
certain solecisams of B or NB, is so eclectic that its methods are not easy 
to follow and in certain cases scriptural terms have been invented by 
conflation or mixture of various attested readings. The text is of no 
use to the real student. 

As between Hort and von Soden t there is no doubt that Hort chooses 





t Thus Dr. Moffatt in his English translation of the N.T. adopts Soden’s text a3 a base. 


¢ As these last pages came to me for revision, I received the news of Hermann 
von Soden’s sudden and untoward end. I regret that there has been so much to 


criticise as to his work. I wish I could have seen any way to modify it. 





462 CODEX B AND iTS ALLIES. 


the short-cut to “‘ get thefe” by electing to adopt B readings in cases of 
doubt. It is not the royal road; in fact it is the disloyal road, when we 
consider how many other witnesses he has to put aside. But it has a 
singular fascination for scholars. It is ingenious and ingenuous, but it 
will never solve our problems. 

Thus, in a variety of three or more readings or orders, Hort almost 
invariably fell back upon B, even when quite alone, so that we know 
what to expect. It is otherwise with von Soden’s text. One does not 
know what to expect, and it ends frequently by getting muddled and not - 
following any document. 

Soden’s notes, by whomsoever put together, without any sciyiemtias! 

are full of every misdemeanour known to textual criticism. Even Evst 28 
is confused with Hvan 28 (John ix. 27). I knew this mast happen when 
people rashed in apparently armed cap-d-pie for the fray, but forgot the 
stringent rules of preparation which eorem such bouts in whatever 
connection undertaken. 

I do not laud Merz because he agrees with me or I with him. But 
Merz reminds one of a mettlesome and blooded horse well and appro- 
priately girded for the tourney, whereas Soden’s charger is ill accoutred, 
with his harness indifferently patched, and in danger of its breaking and 
coming apart, before his rider has crossed a lance. 


Menrx, VoGeLs, anp Borgir. 


Vogels has done, and is doing, good work, but seems to harp too 

much on a consanguinity (not necessarily of origin) between D*, some 
_ latins, and syr cw (sin). 

In the Syriac-Greek text, thus brought into clear seh again by him, 

we have to differentiate between three things : — 
1. Glosses, or additions to the narrative. 
2. Harmonistic matters, which he traces entirely to Tatian. 
3. The real base. 

Vogels drives this second horse very hard, and may kill him. 

I would liken this matter to a unicorn team of horses, which, as I 
know by personal experience, is the most difficult of all combinations to 
drive ; and we can, for convenience, label the horses or their postilions 
Burkitt, Vogels, and Merz. Thus: 





Burkitt seems to have confused glosses of the “ Western ” text with 
the so-called Western text as a whole. This lead-horse has a very tender 








EPILOGUE. MERX, VOGELS, AND BURKITT. THE VERSION TRADITION. 463 


and sensitive mouth, is difficult to drive, and rushes his corners. As in 
every spike-team, one or both of the wheelers (owing to the close coupling 
of the lead-bar to the crab of the pole, in the case of a single leader) 
will frequently follow the leader too quickly when the lead-reins are even 
slightly touched or looped to make a turn. The near-wheeler with his 
postilion Vogels is apt to do this. 

Fortunately Merz, the postilion of the off-wheeler, is steady-going 
and experienced, and on him we depend to arrive safely at our destination. 
He refuses to be stampeded on the one hand by the baulking, or on the 
other hand by over-anxiety on the part of the leader, and tries to quiet 
the anxious demeanour of his wheel-mate, who wants to pull the whole 
coach himself. 

In other words, apologizing for my mixed metaphor, there has been 
great confusion between glosses, harmonies, and base in the Graeco-Syriac- 
Latin unicorn coach. But the three things are absolutely distinct, for: 

(8) The Graeco-Syriae text is often the shortest, irrespective of 
synoptic accounts—hence very likely basic. Merz has done good work in 
his running commentary on syr sin, and must not be denied the proper 
hearing as to this and other cognate matters. 

(2) The harmonies visible which Vogels insists upon are certainly 
present in the Graeco-Syriac text, or in that part of it represented by D d 
and syr cu diatess, but we must not look at this alone. Behind these 
diatessaric harmonies rests a most ancient base. 

(1) The glosses of one or another or of a group of these “ Western” 
documents represent frills and clothing assumed much later than either 
(3) or (2), and are to be kept absolutely distinct and not confused with 
harmonies or base. 


The Version Tradition. 

Reduced to its simplest terms the question of the “ Version tradition ” 
seems to resolve itself into these propositions. 

A heavy Syriac influence is visible acting on the Latins (even 
extending in places to Tertullian t), but much more lightly on the 
Greek mss. It can also be seen extending to the Coptic versions. 

A heavy Coptic influence is observed acting on some of our Latin 
uss (e f J) with nearly as strong a hand. 

A Latin reaction of the earliest is visible on all the Greek mss, and 
can also be traced to some extent in the Coptic and Aethiopic versions. 


: t eg. Readings: Luke xx. 5 Er quare, inquit Christus, non credidistis ei. 
Tert™ 8, This +Htia Syriac. Luke xii. 53 dividetur Tert™*> with r and syr against 
the Latins dividentur and Gk NBDTLU diapepioPyoorra, 

Renderinga: John v. 89 “Scripturas in quibus salutem sreRatis TertPreeser.¢ 
= Burkitt’s translation of syr cu (hiat sin), although of course the Syriac p»+-m is 
‘anceps’ or hydra-headed, but Tert’s speratis is against the Greek Soxeire and against 
all the Latins putatis (a = existimatis as Gwilliam’s translation of syr?* which he 
changed from Schaaf's “ putatis”’). 


464. CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Vogels and others would attribute the Syriac element in the Latins 
solely to the influence of Tatian’s diatessaron. Historically speaking 
there is this much foundation for the opinion in that Victor of Capua 
seems to have found a Latin version of the diatessaron, and so far no 
traces remain of a Greek ms of the diatessaron. But there are objections 
to this view, for the diatessaron does not seem by any means the only 
responsible factor in the matter of Syriac influence on Latin, and it 
seems more probable that Tatian’s foundation text, upon which he 
formed his Syriac diatessaron (if it was originally in Syriac), was a 
bilingual or polyglot embracing Gr-Syr- ¢ Lat, which was current in 
Rome a.pD. 150.f ; 

It is rather to the credit of the Latin versions that they bear traces 
of Syriac influence, for it shows that the second-century scholars referred 
to a Syriac version for elucidation of Aramaic points when in doubt as 
to correct Greek or Latin rendering of the phraseology of and of the 
points connected with a story whose background, was essentially and 
inseparably Semitic. The story having been given to the world in a 
Greek form and dress, the Greeks themselves were no doubt content to 
hold to the Greek text, as do more modern scholars, but the Latin and 
Graeco-Latin mss exhibit a different attitude. Hence the ‘ Western’ 
text links up with the ‘Eastern’ or Syriac, and the Greek text goes over 
to Alexandria and Greek Egypt to be remodelled. 

In the earliest times the written Gospel was not planned. St. Peter, 
when he heard of Mark’s work (we are told), “neither approved nor 
disapproved of it.” In St. Peter's lifetime then he had not foreseen the 
need for it. The preaching of his eye-witness seemed snufficient for the 
times; but that was in the early stages of the ministry, and the people 
were soon clamouring for the records in written form, and we may be 
sure (although history vouchsafes nothing on the point) that in that 
misty period of the aposiolic-sub-apostolic age, between a.p. 60 and 120, 
men were comparing the records,t people of different languages were 





+ This is not the place where I can discuss the “‘ earliest stratum of the Latin text.” 
A key passage like John viii. 65 xa: env erro ort ove or8a avrov, evopat opowos vpmy Yrevotqs 
yields however this amount of information, that Tertullian’m=™ has it thus: “Et si 
dicam non novi, ero similie vesTRI mendax,” whereas all other Latins have vobis with 
yu» of ABDW and a few minuscules (limited to 1 52 138 157 254 2") to which add 
Sod™ (test. Beermann et Gregory). This may or mey not signify that all the other 
Latins post-date Tertullian, but it reveals Tertullian’s Latin version (for I cannot 
consider that he made the translation himself) in accord with the majority of Greek 
evidence. ...“Since, moreover, you are close to Italy you have Rome, from which 
there comes even into our own hands the very authority” (of these “ authentic writings,” 
sea above) TertPresr. x6. 

t Of. all of Tertullian's forty-four chapters in his “ Prescription against Heretics," 
and note (iv) “ adulteri evangelizatores,” (vii) “‘ whence spring those ‘fables and endless 
genealogies’ and ‘ unprofitable questions’ and ‘ words which spread like a cancer’... 
Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and 
dialectic composition...” See also ch. viii. and all the following. 





EPILOGUE. THE VERSION TRADITION. THE VERDICT. . 465 


insisting upon being fed by the Word in their own speech, capable 
translators were at work, and scholars were immediately engaged in 
comparing these versions. 

We are apt to think, in our pride of twentieth-century scholarship 
and achievements, that things are different now to what they were then. 
My mind, however, conceives of just the same criticism in vogue then 
as now (large traces of which have come down to us in the sketches and 
remnants of the diverse heresies of the second and third centuries, into 
which Tertullian enters fully) and doubtless the criticism of the written 
Word was keen and the comparison of the versions extensive. Hence 
also, from the marginal annotations of the disputing factors of the early 
second century, have descended to us many various readings which had 
their origin in that early age and not in any other. 


The Verdict asked. 


We have now completed the arraignment of Codex B in the Gospels, 
referring to a similar condition of the B text elsewhere, and have 
presented the facts upon which the jury should base their verdict. My 
arguments have been cumulative rather than exhaustively elaborate. I 
could have elaborated and gone into much greater detail as to many 
matters simply mentioned or only sketched. I have preferred to write 
for those who can appreciate a cumulative argument, which I hope I 
have at least outlined to their satisfaction. The verdict asked is whether 
B represents a ‘‘neutral” text or not. The claims put forward by us 
are that B does not exhibit a ‘‘ neutral” text, but is found to be tinged, 
as are most other documents, with Coptic, Latin and Syriac colours, 
and its testimony therefore is not of the paramount importance pre- 
supposed and claimed by Hort and by his followers. That B is guilty of 
laches, of a tendency to “improve,” and of “sunstroke’’ amounting 
to doctrinal bias. That the maligned ¢extus receptus served in large 
measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the 
Church at large recognised all this until the year 1881—when Hortism (in 
other words Alexandrianism) was allowed free play—and has not since 
retraced the path to sound traditions. 

In addressing the jury for the last time, I would remind them of 
the salient features in this investigation, and ask them to bring to bear 
upon the situation their good common sense. 

Von Soden has divided the Greek mss into certain families : 

H family (headed by B, but including NCLWZ, AY, and the 
minuscules 33 892 Paris*' and Sod**"), 

I* family (headed by D and including W (in Mark) Sod? 28 372 2P¢ 
604 and Sod?" 7), 

the fam 1 (Sod I*, subdivisions *"), 
the fam 13 (Sod I', subdivisions *”*). 





466 CODEX B AND [TS ALLIES. 


A large family I*, subdivisions *>** (headed by 3 and including M, the 
important cursive 71 and over twenty others). 

Family [****” headed by the important minuscule 348. 

3 I° headed by U and 213 and including Laura4™ and Soden’s 
critical codices 114°, 

»  I* covering the four purple uncials NZ® and 7. 

»  I* headed by 157 and including four others, 

»  I®*>* headed by the Codex Alexandrinus with KII and a 
dozen cursives including the important 270 (Sod) and 
280 (Sod?*), 

Be I* covering A and four cursives. 

3 I’ covering 3, @ very critical family, including c’* Sod’ t 
Sod™ Sod and eighteen others. 

The commentary families A (= XX°=), Kv (of several mss), C (of at 
least five members), N (of at least five members). 

Also fam K* headed by 2 with V and five cursives. 

Also fam K' composed of the uncials EFGH. 

I am sorry to bother the jury to carry so much in their heads, but 
-cards can be obtained by them with this information printed in detail, 
which they can hold in their hands and consult while considering the 
following very simple questions : 

. When &acadyoov (pro ¢pacov) Matt. xiii. 36 

and Scepyouar (pro epxopat) Jno. iv. 15 
“were found in NB, the readings commended themselves to Tischendorf, 
Hort, and von Soden ¢ as being excellent, neutral and basic. 

These expressions convey an ampler and fuller sense as to explaining 
the parable of the tares in the wheat, and as to the woman's repeated 
toil | in coming to the well. Origen used both these expressions. 

According to the critics, when Lucian engaged in an “ Antioch” 
revision of the text, he came across these words and thought they were 
too explanatory, so he substituted dpacov and epyovat. In other words 
he abandoned the better for the worse (or simpler) expressions. 

Now turn to the card and observe that Lucian and the poor textus 
receptus are not alone involved in this absurdity, but all the rest. 

Of the H family all other members oppose. 

Of the I families all oppose except Sod ™ * which have d:acadnoov 
in Matthew, but these also have epyoua: in John and not dcepyopat. 

We have therefore to assume, if S:acag¢yoov and Stepyouas are basic, 
that all the stupid scribes who copied the rest of the fam H uss, all the 
originators or scribes of the recensions J*, I*, I‘, (I#), 18, I°, I*, I*, I*, I', 
I', fam*, fam’, fam®, K', K', when they came to these places made 


t This really belongs with Sod" in family Io. 

t Soden adopta the first but not the second. 

| So the twenty scholars who made the ‘Twentieth Century New Testament’ from 
Hort’s text translate '' nor have to come all the way here to draw water.” 


EPILOGUE. THE VERDICT ASKED. 467 


identically the same ridiculous alterations and reduced the good, expressive, 
and ample “explain” and “come repeatedly” back to the simple “‘¢el”’ 
and “come.” No trace remains, it may be remarked incidentally, of any 
half-way-house interpretations. 

It seems unnecessary to call your attention again to other cognate 
matters. The plain fact will appeal to you and enable you to render 
@ proper judgment on the other issues when you have reconsidered 
these two simple matters, and recovered critical judgment, which Origen 
abused, for he doubtless was responsible for S:acagycov and Siepyopas 
which impressed Hort as being ingenuons, forcible, and basic, instead of 
being disingenuous, and merely of an ‘ improving’ tendency. 

You will therefore absolve Lucian of the crime of bad revision of 
the neutral text in these and in other places, and render o verdict that 
“ Antioch” holds the true base in many places, where a few ill-advised 
but well-meaning Alexandrian ‘‘scholars”’ tried their hands, all too 
successfully, at this same task of revision, which has appealed to modern 
Alexandrian redivivis with such strange persistency. 

For you must render a verdict on my appeal to a Court superior to 
that of the Revisers of 1881, as they are found both to enjoy and to 
have perpetuated in the Revised Text Ssacagyaov and duepyopar. 

In rendering your verdict it would be interesting to have your views 
upon the character of Hort’s foundations, theories, and critical principles. 
They are deeply involved in a consideration of these two substitutions. 
For instance, Soden refuses Sepyopzat, but falls into line for d&acapyoor 
and other kindred alterations upon identically the same authority. The 
Revisers and Soden refuse jpev (for alper) in Jno. x. 18, which Hort had 
adopted upon the joint testimony of N and B. Where is then the solid 
foundation of Hort’s system? What becomes of the theory that 
B pre-eminently holds the “ neutral” base as against others ? 

Again, if 8 and B went apart “close to the autographs,” how much 
closer to the autographs must some of our cursives have gone apart, for 
they retain in places an apostolic and sub-apostolic base when they 
agree with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, or the Old Syriac against 
NBD and the rest of the H or I* families. 

Lastly, as regards awhat influenced NB to engage in certain revision, 
we must consider Version influence upon them. If this is seen and 
recognised, the ‘“ neutral” foundation falls away, the props are withdrawn, 
and the theories as to this foundation melt into air. 

Leaving aside the possible version influence upon them of what they 
saw opposite ¢pacoy to influence them to substitute d:acagyooy as an 
amendment, you have only to turn the pages of my brief to be convinced 
that concurrent version influence is visible all along the line upon N and B. 

What of xavavaios (pro xavaverns) Matt. x. 4 by BODL (cf. lat); of 
vatapnvou (pro vatwpatov) Luke xxiv. 19 (cf. lat); of Euye (pro Ev) 
Luke xix. 17 (¢f. lat); what of acres (pro Enver) Matt. xvi. 4 by B? 

2H2 








468 . CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


What of the syriac papiay (for papia) found in B? 

What of Luke xvi. 3 ceartew ove toxvw xat ewatrew acyuvozat 
found in B only of Greeks but with syrr sah boh and aeth? 

What of the Coptic sympathy at: 

Mark | xiv. 18 tov ecOtovtwy 

» iii, 32. aypyeros : ? 2 

Luke xi. 36 +e (ante tn aorparn) B quite alone with Coptic. 

1» —- iii. 50 a@yados S:xaros (—xas) : 

Consult also in places pure syriac, coptic, or latin order adopted 
eclectically as the mood seized B or its parent. 

As to & you will find in the appendix to my brief (Part II.) ample 
matter for reflection. The instances are too numerous to be mentioned 
here. 

The Version influence affects 8 and B in different places. 

Perhaps you have not given sufficient attention yet to this feature. 

Observe then the same character of influence on the text of C or W, 
L or ¥, 1 or 13, 4 or 7, 21 or 22, 28 or 157, 33 or 213, 348 or 604, 892 or 
Paris”, c*T or Sod?™, Sod'™ or Sod, all in differing places, and you 
will open your eyes, and by your verdict the eyes of the Professors 
and of the Public, to a state of things unrecognised hitherto, and 
which must be considered in dealing with the basic text. I leave the 
matter confidently in your hands, relying on your sound common sense. 


Hortian “heresy.” 


“Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis negotium est haeresis, 
quae sic semper emendat Evangelia, dum vitiat— TertMar. tv. 


Upon the first page of this book I spoke of the “ Hortian heresy,” 
Upon this last page I would fain explain what it is that I accuse of being 
a heresy. : 

The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as “‘ the 
true text,” and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on 
higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the 
Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent, then such and such 
an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their 
accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision 
current 200 to 450 4.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely 
revived in our day and stamped as genuine. 

It is not as if we do not know what to expect from these Egyptian 
documents. We do know. I have open around me, as I write, the 
different authorities. When I am dealing with St. Mark’s Gospel I 
know perfectly well what to expect when I consult A. I know that A is 
going to fall into line with NB right through the Gospel, and I am 


EPILOGUE. HORTIAN “‘ HERESY.” EGYPTIAN TEXTS. 469 


hardly ever disappointed. It is practically the same document. When 
I look at 2 I know that in the main they are against NB here. Iu goes 
with NB generally as elsewhere. C, I know, will sometimes go with 
them and sometimes not. When I turn to ¥ I am hardly ever mistaken. 
It runs almost invariably with NB. But when I look at W I never 
know what to expect. I know a@ will bear away from the other Latins 
and show positive Greek reaction. Of syr six I am never sure, while b 
nearly always helps me to good basic traditions. As to sah and boh they 
are not certain as allies of NB, so that in some cases one knows what to 
expect and in others one does not. 

The plain fact is that NBCLAY really represent but one document, 
and that one at variance with all others; but, as explained elsewhere, it 
is anything but a ‘“ neutral” document. 

I can almost hear the opposition saying “‘ Why here he admits the 
steady flow of a ‘neutral’ text.” But it is not “neutral”; it is purely 
Egyptian. Every new document recovered from Egypt points the same 
way. The new fragments published by Amélineau grouped under the 
Jetter T are proof positive. Let those who do not agree with me take 
the fragment T' and compare it with NB and Co. It falls into line as a 
regular adherent, yet in some of their sub-singular readings it refuses to 
follow, showing exactly where the sub-editing took place in & or B. 

The “Hortian heresy ” opened the way to endless other pseudo- 
scientific heresies. Thus Robinson Smith, dating from Iffley near Oxford, 
has written a paper for the October 1918 number of the ‘ American 
Journal of Theology’ concerning St. Luke’s dependence on Josephus. 
The case as to this is most unconvincingly stated, but on the last page 
he goes out of his way to fall foul of St. Luke in these gracious and 
conservative and helpful terms: 

“That is not Luke’s method of paraphrasing. On the contrary, he 
usually, or at least frequently, lowers, not heightens, effects; his sole 
aim apparently was to tell the story in his own words, and his sole 
Method was to change his originals, result as it might . . . I think it 
can also be shown that the resemblances between passages of Luke and 
John are not, as has been held, corrections of Luke by John, but dilutions 
of John by Luke: that the order of the Gospels is therefore Mark, 
Matthew, John, Luke; and the dates I place, tentatively, at 60, 80, 93, 
and 100 a.p. But the present task of the higher critic is not to fix 
exactly the dates of the Gospels, but by the elimination of Luke to see 
exactly what they tell us... Luke has indeed much to answer for; 
indeed, it is an axiom of scholarship that when a historian is found 
wanting in reasonable accuracy he is not to be trusted at all. But it is 
an axiom of common sense that ‘we should not try to get more out of an 
experience than there is in it,’ and we should err grievously if we threw 
all of Luke’s writings overboard simply because, where we can watch him, 
he so often flees from the truth.” 


4710 - CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Previously Smith had said :— 

“First, and in general, this: that precisely as Luke has been 
eliminated as historically worthless and untrustworthy in all of his 
palpable derivations from Mark, so must he be eliminated in all that he, 
and he alone, has in common with Matthew, such as the distorted and 
widely scattered sayings found in Luke of the Sermon on the Mount. 
About three-fourths or three-fifths of Luke is thus set aside as negligible if 
not actually harmful, and our knowledge of Christ becomes at once more 
definite, if also to some extent more circumscribed.” 

The author of this tirade [another Marcion come to judgment] has 
the effrontery to close his article, after accepting in toto the parables of 
the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, with these words: 

“And in thinking of his writings as a whole, we do well to remind 
ourselves that if we possessed only the Gospel according to St. Luke, 
every Christian knee would still bow.” 

And this is offset only ten lines above by the statement previously 
quoted: ‘that when a historian is found wanting in reasonable accuracy 
he ts not to be trusted at all.” : 

The accusations as to the detail of St. Luke’s misdemeanours [outside 
of the ridiculous rehashed nonsense about Josephus] are to be found on 
the first page of the article, and resolve themselves chiefly into these 
trivial, not to say pitiful, selections. I quote the learned author: 

“‘ Proceeding, then, with the other lines of evidence that point to 
Matthew's priority over Luke, we shall consider first such Markan 
phrases as were changed by Matthew, before they were again changed by 
Luke. (1) Mark 6: 3: ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?’ 
becomes Matthew 13: 55; ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son ? is not his 
mother called Mary?’ which in turn becomes Luke 4: 22: ‘Is not this 
Joseph’s son?’f (2) Mark 6:4: ‘A prophet is not without honour, but 
in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house’; 
which is shortened to Matthew 13: 57: ‘A prophet is not without 
honour, save in his own country, and in his own house’; which in turn is 
shortened to Luke 4: 24: ‘No prophet is accepted in his own country...’ 

What such shortening by Luke has to do with his accuracy as a 
historian I do not see. Besides which the longer phrase in Mark vi. 4 is 
not certain, textually speaking. 

As to St. Luke’s general reliability, we bave a better witness than 
Robinson Smith, for St. Paul, the fellow-traveller of the beloved physician, 
not only seems. to quote St. Luke’s words rather than St. Matthew’s t as 


t See Knox in ‘Some loose Stones’ (p. 45) for a cogent and delightful bit of 
argument here as to the untenable character of the modern scholars’ whole hypothesis, 
which is shown to contain complete self-contradiction. 

¢ 1 Tim. v. 18 Adyes yap 9 ypady + Soir Doaura ob dipdcers (= Deut. xxv. 4) 
nate Géios 6 épydrys rod pirdot abrou 
= Luke x. 7 dftos yap 6 épydrns rot pucdod atrod 
whereas Matthew x. 10 = dgsos yap 6 épydrns ris tpodpas avroi, 


EPILOGUE. ROBINSON SMITH ON ST. LUKE. 471 


Scripture, and has thus set his seal upon Luke (before 65 a.D.), but in his 
second epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 18) has these commendatory 
remarks : 
“cuverrémrpaper $€ tov adcAdov pet’ adtod ob 6 Erauvos év 
T@ evayyedio Std Tacdy Tay éexxArAQotav,” 
which have generally been taken to apply to St. Luke. 
And Tertullian**rioniv.5 gave: Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo ad- 
scribere solent...Lucae autem quod est secundum nos. 


It is easy enough to turn the tables on the hypercritics by pointing 
out that it may be St. Mark who “flees from the truth” by amplification 
rather than St. Luke who “ distorts” Scripture by a shortening process. 


St. Luke writes in iv. 40 Auvovtos 8é rod #Alov 

St. Mark ,,  ,, 1.32 "Ovpias &€ yevoudvns éte Su 6 FAtos 

St. Luke v.15  S&:épyero 8 warrAov 6 Adyos wept avtod 

St. Mark 1.45 'O 88 €EeXOay FpEato knpdocey Twodra Kai Sadnpiter. 


Tov Aoyov . . . 
St. Luke vi. 3  dadre éreivacev abris cal of per’ adtod 
St. Mark ii. 25 Ore ypstav loyev nal émeivacey abtos Kal of pet abtod 


St. Luke xi.18 ef 8€ nai 6 catavas éf’ Eavtop S:epepisbn mas oray- 
oetat 7 Bacirela adtod ; 

St. Mark iii. 26 wal e! 6 catavas dvdaty ep aviv epepicOn Kat ob 
Swarat orhvat ddda Téros exer 


St. Luke vill. 6 xa) Grepov xatémecen emt tiv métpav 


St. Mark iv. 5 «al Gddro émecev ert 1d wempmdes Omou ovK elyer yi 
P ¥ 
TroAdHY 
St. Luke viii. 8 «ai uév éxoinoev xaprov éxatovtatyac (ova 
St. Mark iv. 8 «atl édiSov xaprév dvaBalvorta Kai abkavopevov 


St. Luke vill. 24. xal éravcavto Kal éyéveto yadivn 
St. Mark iv. 89 xai éxomace o dveyos nal éyéveto yadyvn peyadrn 


St. Luke viii. 39 dadertpede els tov otKor cov 


St. Mark v.19 draye eis Tov oixdy cov mpds TOvs Govs 

St. Luke ibid. Kat Sinyot bea coe érroincev 6 Oeds 

St. Mark ibid. xal dmayyetdov abtois boa 6 KUpiés coe TeToinKey Ka) 
eNEncev oe 


St. Luke vill. 41 mapexdder adrav eicedOelv eis Tov oixov avtod 

St. Mark v.23 «ai wapaxanrel (vel mapexadel) adtév modded Aéyor Sri 
76 Ovydtpiiv pov éeoxdras exe (Kal Oédw) va 
Mov eriOis tas xelpas ath va owOh cal Son 

St. Luke vill. 47 Sotdca Sé 4 yuvt Ste obw EdaOev rpésovea HrOev 

St. Mark v.33 4 68 yuu poPndecica Kai tpepovca eidvia 3 yéyover 


yon 
aut) 


472 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


8t. Luke viii. 526 8¢ elev py xXalete 


St. Mark v.39 xal eiceAOew déyes abrois ri BopyBelabe al Kdaiete ; 
St. Luke ix. 28 .. . els 7d dpos mpocettacba 
St. Mark ix. 1. . . eis dpos inppdav Kat’ iSiav pévous 


St. Matt. xvii. 1. . . eis dpos thnddv Kat’ lav 

St. Luke xviii. 23 6 8 dxovcas tadra weptdumos eyéveto 

St. Mark X.22 6 8 orvpdoas éxi 7d AOyy awHOev AvTOUpEves 
St. Luke xviii. 380 wodAatraciova &v 76 xalpw TovT~e 

St. Mark x. 80 éxarovratAaciova viv év 7H xaipw totTe 

St. Luke xxi. 4 dravra rbv Blov bv elyev EBarev 

St. Mark = xii. 44. wdvta doa elyev Barer brov tov Bilov aris 


St. Luke xxi. 30 Grav mpoBddaow F5y 

St. Mark = xiii. 28 Stay adbrijs 98 6 KAdSOS amadds yévytat Kal exdin Ta 
pvdra ri 

St. Luke tbid, © ywaoxere zt H8n éyyis ta Oépos early 

St. Mark xiii. 29 yevddornere Gre éyyds core ert Odpats 


St. Luke xxii.12 . . . decker dvdyasov péya éotpwpévov 


St. Mark xiv.15 . . . deiEet avayatov péya eotpopévov Erotpov 

St. Luke xxiii. 26 ... Zep. twa Kupny. épyopevov an’ wypod 

St. Mark oo xv.21  . . . rapayovrd twa Zep. Kupqy. épyspevor ax’ dypod 

St. Luke xxiii. 35 . . . ddXous ower, cwodtTw éavroy . . . 

St. Mark xv. 32 . . . dddXovs écwcer, Eavriv ov Stvatat ceca. . va 
Beopev cal mictevompev 

St. Matt. xxvii. 42 ddrouvs Eowcev, éavtov ov Swwatat aooar.. Kai 


miorevoopev én’ avtov 


St. Luke xxiv. 1 17 5é ped ray caBBdrav dpOpov Babéws . . . 
St. Mark xvi.1,2 Kal S&ayevoudvou tod caSBdrov . . nal Alay Tpwi TH 
pid tav caBBdrov. . . 


‘We have been taught that the‘ shorter”’ text is not only the more 
desirable but must represent basic conditions of Aoyca or of “Q.” 

Why should St. Luke then “flee the truth” here because he gives 
us the shorter accounts? Why should not St. Mark have amplified 
the accounts? Why are we to be forced into acquiescence in the theory 
that Mark formed the basis for Matthew and Luke in these synoptic 
passages, if it was not the imaginary “Q’’? 

As to St. Luke “fleeing the truth,” as against unnecessary Semitic 
redundancy in Mark, the matter is ridiculous. Supposing St. Luke did 
use St. Mark, was it necessary for him to copy word for word. I suppose 
St. Luke could have employed someone to copy Mark had he wished to 
do that. He simply supplements Mark, giving us those wonderful 





EPILOGUE. UNFORTUNATE STATUS OF GOSPEL CRITICISM. 473 


parables that all the critics accept. Why cannot they leave the beloved 
physician alone, if, writing for Greeks, he prefers his own language as a 
historian ? 

As to the Josephus business it is not creditable to seek to make 
Luke dependent on Josephus, when on similar occasions we are assured 
that sub-apostolic Fathers are not dependent on the N.T. writings but 
on a “lost source common to both.” We cannot argue both ways. If 
this be true of sub-apostolic Fathers we must allow St. Luke and 
Josephus also to be dependent on a common lost source. 

As to the Gospel of John,t Burkitt treats it as of no account whatever. 
But the grounds of this disbelief apply equally to the Gospel of Mark, 
for quotations from Mark are practically nil in the earliest times. The 
critics first sought to destroy St. John’s Gospel as a historical document. 
Next they decided that St. Matthew’s Gospel { was not prior to that of 
St. Mark, although the earliest Patristic testimony is all in favour of St. 
Matthew. Now Smith tells us that St. Luke is an absolute liar. We 
are left with Mark, the shortest in matter, the most ample in substance. 
Yet it has not as great claims to historic priority, as evidenced by early 
quotations, as the other Gospels. Are we eventually to be left with 
nothing? Is all this fine criticism simply bent upon pulling the house 
down upon its ears ? 

I take the liberty of speaking out thus without mincing matters 
because no one else seems to care to do so, and to handle the matter 
with gloves and soft phrases seems to me would be unfaithful. 

Shall we not do well to attend to the textual side of the problem 
before indulging in the vain imaginings and superficial flights of the 
“higher” criticism? Are we really better and more capable critics than 
Tertullian? Tertullian does not consider that &t. Luke “ distorted” 
the sermon on the mount. 





t Yet Tertullian’s order is (1) John, (2) Matthew, (8) Luke, (4) Mark (cf. Scrivener’s 
and Gregory’s Introductions) and Tertiuilian’s words (against Marcion iv. 2) are: 
“ Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matheus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas 
et Marcus instaurant.” : 

¢ But see the refutation of this in ‘S. Mark’s indebtedness to S. Matthew,’ by 
F. P. Badham (T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1897), and note the lists in chapter iii. 
Then read the words of introduction there and run on to ch. iv. p, 38 for the continuation 
of the author’s summary, as follows :— 

“Of course in many of these cases, considered separately, the obligation might be 
in either direction—S. Matthew might have pruned, toned down, &c.—but considering 
them all together one can see that there is a unity on the positive side and not on the 
negative. To suppose that S. Matthew had predilections exactly antithetical to those 
of 8. Mark is to suppose a literary miracle... What an extraordinary conception of 
S. Matthew we are driven to by the hypothesis that the precise vivid details of S. Mark 
are original{ Yor these details are absent from 8, Matthew one and all, and if the 
Matthaean narratives are to be derived from those in St. Mark, the conclusion is 
inevitable that the author of the former was unprecise, unpicturesque deliberately I” 











474 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


Dean Inge on St. Paul. 


“ How do ye say we are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo the false pen 
of the scribes hath torought falsely” (Sept: “In vain hath wrought the false pen of the 
scribes ").¢—Jerem. viii. 8. 

Before conclading I wish to pass in review a still more recent article 
(Jan. 1914) in the English Quarterly Review on “St. Paul" by the 
Dean of St. Paul’s. : 

In the list of authorities under review heading his article I miss the 
German writer Drews’ scurrilous and unscholarly volume entitled Taz 
Carist Myru, in which he wrote (3 ed., p. 207, on “ the Pauline Jesus”): 

“At the present day it will be acknowledged by all sensible people 
that, as Ed. von Hartmann declared more than thirty years ago, without 
Paul the Christian movement would have disappeared in the sand just 28 
the many other Jewish religions have done ;” 
yet Dean Inge takes precisely the same line as Drews, and, while 
perhaps he may not be pleased to be coupled with Drews, it is clear that 
the same school of thought animates the infidel and the Churchman, 
Dean Inge sums up thus (p. 68) : 
“Tt is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity 
“if he (Paul) had never lived ; we cannot even be sure that the name of 
Jesus would still be honoured amongst men.” 
Thus the same view is held by the atheist and antichrist Drews as 
that put forth soberly and solemnly at the close of his article by a high 
dignitary of the Episcopal Church. ’ 

Is it true then that without Paul Christianity would be dead? _ 

To accept this view is to deny the Paraclete’s presence, to deny the 
Saviour’s Godhead, and to belittle God the Father to a degree! 

If instead of following Drews, it had been said by Dean Inge that 
Paul happened to be the Master's “chosen vessel” to convey the 
message to the Gentiles, that his letters had been inspired by His grace, 
and preserved to us by His agencies, it would have been sufficient. ' As 
it stands the Dean’s expregsion seems to point to the survival of 
Christianity depending fortuitously upon Paul’s personality—surely a 
very travesty of the Christian verities ! 

Unfortunately modern “ scholars” delight in the crudest and most 
irreligious utterances, if they can only thereby show that they are free 
and untrammelled thinkers. , 

There were many others besides Paul. In the Didache for instance 
(that ante-Barnabas document) occurs a sentence even more noble than 
any appearing in 1 Cor. xv., viz. (Did'*-§) ; 

et yap &v t@ AOavatw Kowwvol cote, TOT@ pAdXov ev TOIs OvyTois. 
The trouble is that the ‘scholarship’ of the last few years is 


} A-Vis apparently '' conflate.” 


EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 475 


painfully arrogant and seems to think that it has made great discoveries. 
All this appears in the Dean’s article again and again. He says: 

(p. 46) “It is only in our own day that the personal characteristics 
of St. Paul have been intelligently studied... It has been 
left for the scholars of the present century to give us a 
picture of St. Paul as he really was.:.” (Then he goes 
on to describe the picture: ‘‘“-a man much nearer to 
George Fox or John Wesley than to Origen or Calvin.” 
This is almost laughable. Have ‘modern scholars’ 
discovered this indeed? The only suggestion I would 
offer is that the comparison is a little inverted. George 
Fox and John Wesley were men much nearer to St. Paul 
than to Origen or Calvin. Why should St. Paul take the 
low place in the form of the comparison ?) 

(p. 47) “The ‘Pastoral Epistles’ are probably not genuine, though 
the defence of them is not quite a desperate undertaking.” t 

(p. 52) ‘A curious indication which has not been noticed is that as 
he tells us himself he five times received the maximum 
number of lashes from Jewish tribunals.” 

(p. 63) ‘The Evangelist whom we call St. John is the best com- 
mentator on Paulinism. This is one of the most important 
discoveries of recent New Testament criticism.” Indeed! 

(p. 66) “..though it is only recently that this character of the 
Pauline churches has been recognised.” 

(The Dean bas been fondling the word ‘ mystery-religion’ and apply- 
ing it to St. Paul’s Christianity and Churches; one sentence runs: 
“Second, the promise of spiritual communion with some Deity.” 
Observe the calculated subtlety of the comparison here between the 
mystery-cults of the Greeks and the mystery-religion of the Christians). 

As to the quotation from p. 47—“ The Pastoral Epistles are probably 

not genuine’’—who says so? Only some critics; { and these gentlemen 
are never agreed among themselves on other matters. Yet the Dean 
reads from these same pastoral Scriptures in public, and accepted them 
(1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) when ordained, which ordination 
embodied » continuous declaration, not to be put aside at will by anyone 
while still within the Church. The question is “Do you unfeignedly 
believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?” 
Answer : “I do believe them.” I am aware that a movement is on foot 
to modify this declaration (which would indeed open the way to a grand 
muddle), but the adage of a great churchman— 

“ Philosophia quotidie progressu, Theologia nisi regressu, non crescit ’— 





tt Ramsay : ‘ The Church in the Roman Empire,’ pp. 248 and 365 note, accepts them 
asgenuine. How then can Inge write as he does when a modern scholar such as Ramsay, 
of surpassing eminence, endorses them? Dean Inge himself, speaking at the Lyceum 
Club (cirea May 10, 1914), is reported to have referred to “the advice which St. Paul 
gave to Timothy,” and then to have quoted 2 Tim. ii. 3! 








476 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


may be recommended to these progressive churchmen. If we abandon 
the Epistles to Timothy today, the critics of tomorrow may restore 
them.t If we sbandon Ephesianst{ today, its Pauline authority may 
be fully established tomorrow. 

In order to accept the views which ‘modern scholarship ’ presses 
upon us in so cavalier a fashion, we must believe that Terfullian ond 
Irenaeus before a.D. 200 were worse judges of the Canon than critics of 
today. Tertullian does not hesitate to use Ephesians|| as a Pauline 
epistle and sets his seal on both epistles to Timothy as Scripture in 
many places. 

In Tertuilian’s treatise de pudicitia he quotes from 1 Tim. i. in 
chapter xiii. several times. Then follows this up in chapter xiv. by . 
using the apostle’s own description of himself in 1 Tim. i. 1 and 
2 Tim. i. 1. He writes Podte xlv. near the end . 

“ne scilicet Paulum apostolum Christi, doctorem nationum in fide 
et veritate, vas electionis...” : 
He also quotes from Titus and has confirmed Philemon in Mera v.21; 
“To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the 
falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder however when he received [into 
his Apostolicon] this letter which was written to but one man,{ that he 
rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which together 
treat of ecclesiastical discipline.” 
Is Tertullian then not a better witness than Marcion? Must we 
class Dean Inge also with the Marcionites? What better proofs do we 
require than Tertullian’s express testimony ? Can the ‘modern scholars’ 
give us anything as ancient against the Pauline authorship? For 
Marcion is clearly out of court and always has been. 

Or is it that ‘modern scholars’ are impatient of ‘ ecclesiastical 
discipline,’ referred to by Tertullian as contained in the letters ? 

To whom but St. Paul himself can 1 Tim. i. 13 refer ?— : 
“formerly being a blasphemer and a persecutor and 
an overbearing ungovernable man. But I obtained mercy 
because I did it ignorantly in unbelief”; or again: 

2 Tim. i. 16,17 “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus, 
for he oft’ refreshed me and was not ashamed of my 
chain, but when he was in Rome he sought me out 
very diligently and found me”; or again : 

% i. 9 “ Wherein I suffer evil «to bonds as a malefactor, but 

the word of God is not bound”; or again: 

» iii. 11 “ Persecutions, afflictions, what things befell me in 


¢ The arguments against them are absolutely inconclusive. 

} P. 47: “ Of the rest the weight of arigencet is slightly against the Pauline authorship 
of Ephesians.” 

| Whether this epiatle was ‘addressed 6 those at Ephesus or elsewhere matters not. 

| See Bishop Wordsworth’s very beautiful remarks about the letter to Philemon. 





EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST, PAUL. 477 


Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra, what persecutions I 
endured. But out of them all the Lord delivered 
me”; or again: 
2 Tim. iv. 11 “ Only Luke is with me”; 
» iv. 14 “ Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil.” 


Again and again in the pastoral epistles there are exhortations to 
avoid foolish questions, babblings, endless genealogies, profane and old 
wives’ fables, “ for (2 Tim. iv. 3) the time will come when they will not 
endure sound doctrine.” 

Is that time upon us ? 

In order that readers may not think that I am unaware of any 
“new” arguments against the genuineness of the pastoral Epistles 
and that such exist, I will frankly confess that I know of no ‘new’ 
argaments against them, and I venture to say that neither does the 
Dean of St. Paul’s. Threadbare arguments there have been, briefly 
referred to by that excellent critic Bishop C. Wordsworth in his N.T., 
p. 434, as to the peculiar phraseology of the Epistles—arguments which 
he dismisses in a few well-chosen words; but of ew arguments against 
them by ‘modern scholars’ where are they, Mr. Dean? I think they 
are in Marcion’s locker. Certainly the suggestion that the heresies 
referred to in the Epistles are of later date than St. Paul's times is 
absolutely inconclusive and not even probable.t 

We cannot afford to be divorced from the ‘ Pastoral Epistles’ in this 
summary fashion. We regard them as some of St. Paul’s most inspired 
utterances against the wicked unbelief and misbelief of ‘ the last times.’ 
Thus the closing admonition of the Ist Epistle to Timothy covers the 
ground magnificently in one sentence : 2 

“O Timothy, the (sacred) deposit guard (carefully), turing away 
from the empty babblings and oppositions oF SCIENCE FALSELY so 
CALLED, which some professing, have failed (‘missed the mark’ 
R-V marg) ¢ concerning the faith.” 

("O Trydbee thy rapabjeny (or mapaxarab yxqy, the meaning is the same) 
puaratov, cxrpeméuevas tas BeBijdous Kevopavias nat dvriOeress Tis pevda- 
vunov Pocens, Hy Tives erayyeArAOpevoe Tepl Thy wlatw joTExnoav). | 

Has the Anglo-Saxon race outgrown its Bible and the four-fold 
Gospel narrative? To hear the Dean one would think so. He writes 
(p. 45) : ‘‘ We know very little in reality of Peter and James and John, of 
Apollos and Barnabas. And of Paul’s divine Master no biography can 
ever be written.” : 





t Sse Dr. Lindsay’s explanation of the weakness of Harnack’s position (p. 140 note, 
‘The Church and the Ministry in the early centuries,’ London, 1902). 

t joréyquay A-V ‘erred,’ but the meaning is stronger: ‘ failed,’ Thrice is this 
word used in Timothy. Elsewhere at 1i. 6 and at 2 if. 18. 

| fhe verse has been challenged as a Jater addition, but on Simsy grounds. 


478 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Observe the absence of the word adequate. The Dean does not 
say ‘‘and of Paul's divine Master no adequate biography can ever be 
written,” but simply “no biography can ever be written.” We seem 
to feel that he means “no biography has ever been written.” 

What is he trying to teach? That the Gospel-narrative is untrue, 
or only so imperfect that it is useless to ‘modern scholars’? Why 
always harp on the insufficiency of our documents to portray all that 
went on in those days in Galilee? This spirit of unrest is not scholar- 
ship; it is simply “denying the power.” Oh, for wingéd words to combat 
these stupid heretical suggestions ! 

For suggestions they are. Suggestions full of guile, emanating from 
the false teachers,t false apostles, } false brethren, || false prophets, in 
our classrooms ; suggestions that Peter’s memory failed him, that Mark 
suppressed things, and John introduced questionable stories; that Luke 
changed and embroidered, and that none of the Gospellists told the truth ! 

. ‘Modern scholars’ love to touch on the forbidden ground of the 
speculative philosophies which St. Paul so often condemns in his 
pastoral epistles. They touch upon it and withdraw, but the harm for 
the reader is done. Thus on p. 60, of course the Dean does not mean 
that he approves of any idolatry, yet here is the wording of the sentence: 
“In addressing the Gentiles, we may assume that he followed the 
customary Jewish line of apologetic, denouncing the folly. of idolatry— 
an aid to worship which is quite innocent and natural in some peoples, 
but which the Jews never understood.” 

Reduced to plain English what does this mean? 

Does it mean that although the Jews did not understand it (is 
“ never” quite accurate, by the way ?), idolatry is nevertheless helpful ? 


Again, pp. 66/67: “It is useless to deny that St. Paul regarded 
Christianity as, at least on one side, a mystery-religion. . . It was as a 
mysiery-religion that Europe accepted Christianity . . . And students of 
the New Testament have not yet realised the importance of the fact 
that St. Paul, who was ready to fight to the death against the Judaising 
of Christianity, was willing to take the first step, and a long one, towards 
the Paganising of it. It does not appear that his personal religion was 
of this type. He speaks with contempt of some doctrines and practices 
of Pagan mysteries, and will allow no ‘rapprochement’ with what he 
regards as devil-worship. In this he remains a pure Hebrew. But he 
does not appear to see any danger in allowing his Hellenistic churches to 
assimilate the worship of Christ to the honours paid to the gods of the 
mysteries, and to set their whole religion in this framework, provided 
only that they have no part nor lot with those who sit at ‘the table of © 
demons ’—the sacramental love-feasts of the heathen mysteries.” 


+ 2 Peter ii. 1. f 2 Cor. xi. 13. ]] Gal. ii. 4, 
J Matt. vii. 15, xxiv. 11, Mark xiii, 22, 1 John iv. 1. 








EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 479 


Now what in the name of commen sense does all this mean? Of 
course ‘modern scholars’ understand the tone, the wording, the lesson 
(is there one?) pervading this kind of high-sounding talk. But froma 
churchman to churchpeople it is un-Pauline and un-ecclesiastical. It 
is walking unconcernedly on dangerous ground. It is hinting always at 
an undercurrent of unbelief latent in the ‘ modern scholar’s’ inmost soul. 

Either we have God's true religion and our mystery-cult is absolutely 
un-pagan and unlike any other in the world, or for Deus let us substitute 
Dit and be done with it, and wipe out all Paul’s striving to inculcate the 
lesson of “ the one true God.” 

But this is not nearly all. For close after this comes another 
astonishing sentence : 

“There is something transitional about all St. Paul’s teaching.” 

This curious Adyor is left unexplained and followed by a perfectly 
harmless ten lines (bottom of p. 67), but the sting of the word remains. 
There is nothing permanent then about the foundations of Christianity as 
preached by Paul? ‘What does the excellent Dean mean? That things 
which might offend the modern feminine suffragist are to be found in 
Paul's teaching? But he has just disallowed the Epistles in which the 
major part of this teaching occurs! We have to give it up. 

But the Dean is not a consistent writer anyway, for on p. 60 he says 
first of Paul’s language: ‘‘ His Greek, though vigorous and effective, is 
neither correct nor elegant”—and then a few lines below: “Regarded 
merely as a piece of poetical prose 1 Cor. xiii, is finer than anything that 
has been written in the Greek language since the great Attic prose writers.” 

And is this also a modern discovery ? a 

I have said that Dean Inge is not consistent. We find another 
instance on p. 50. Under verbiage and somewhat elaborate language he 
seeks to impress us with the scholar’s profundity, yet bis study of 
Ramsay (cited among his authorities on the first page) is not profound 
enough for him to avoid direct and unnecessary antagonism to Ramsay's 
views as to St. Paul’s family.f Dean Inge writes (without in the 
slightest degree indicating that this is opposed to Ramsay, whom he is 
reviewing inter alios) : 

“St. Paul did not belong to the upper class. He was a working 

artisan, a ‘tent-maker,’ who followed one of the regular trades of the 

place.” 
Ramsay accounts quite otherwise for St. Paul’s poverty, and I 
cannot but think that Ramsay has the better and more solid foundation 
for his views, In as fine a passage as one can find in bis works, and 
with an almost unerring instinct for happy solutions and inspiring views, 
quite above the clap-trap of the schools, Ramsay describes the scene at 
home after St. Paul’s conversion, the bitter words which must have passed 





t Succinctly stated on pp. 31/37 of ‘St. Paul the Traveller.’ 











480 __, CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


from father to son, incidentally exhibiting, by an ‘e silentio’ method, the 
reality of St. Paul’s conversion, the certainty of his heavenly vision, and 
the permanence of his new views as to religion. He pictures the final 
break with home ties, and our apostle become a wanderer upon the face 
of the earth; then, and only then, driven to take up a trade for his 
living. Not that he learned the trade then, for in accordance with 
custom he had doubtless learned it at home, bat that after leaving a 
comparatively affluent family ‘milieu’ he had to face the world alone 
for the first time. 

Again, a cruel and subtle endeavour is made by referring the ‘thorn 
jn the flesh’ of St. Paul to a predisposition to epilepsy—here ugain our 
good Dean is following Drews—to account for his ‘visions’ and the 
matter of his conversion. 

It is as subtle as it is cruel, and as cruel as it is subtle, for it is 
introduced some distance away from the main theme of the conretsion, 
which is discussed as follows : 

‘* What caused the sudden change which so astonished the survivors 
among his victims? To suppose that nothing prepared for the vision 
near Damascus, that the apparition in the sky was a mere ‘bolt from the 
blue,’ is an impossible theory. The best explanation is furnished by a 
study of the apostle’s character” (observe the subtlety of the allusion) 
‘‘which we really know very well. . 

“The vision came in the desert, ike men see visions and hear voices 
to this day. They were very common in the desert of Gobi when Marco 
Polo traversed it. The ‘spirit of Jesus,’ a¢ he came to call it, spoke to 
his heart, and the form of Jesus flashed before his eyes. Stephen had 
been right; the crucified was indeed the Lord from Heaven. So Saul 
became a Christian; and it was to the Christianity of Stephen, not to that 
of James the Lord’s brother, that he was converted.” 

Here the Dean comes out more into the open. Reduced to plain 
English it is this. Paul was an epileptic. The vision he saw took place 
during such an attack. He imagined that Jesus had appealed to him, 
but the vision was no more real than any other which other men from 
that day to this have experienced in the same neighbourhood. He was 
really converted by pondering over Stephen’s attitude and steadfastness. 

Turning back to p. 51 you will find how the Dean falls into line 
about this epilepsy theory. He guards the matter slightly. “He was 
liable to mystical trances in which some have found confirmation of the 
supposition that he was an epileptic.” That sounds mild, bat close by 
he goes on to add that the belief of ‘some’ is also his belief; for he says : 
“He suffered from some obscure physical trouble, the nature of which we 
can only guess. It was’ probably epilepsy.” He then proceeds to say : 
“But these abnormal states were rare with him; in writing to the 





+ The Dean means as an epileptic. 





EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 481 


Galatians he has to go back fourteen years to the date when he was 
‘caught up to the third Heaven.’” ‘This serves a double purpose, 
implying the epileptic fits were rare but none the less real although 
connecied with heavenly visions. But does not Dean Inge see that the 
ground is untenable? No man, subject to epilepsy, would have dared to 
imperil the efficacy of his message by falling down in a fit at a critical 
moment. That surely ‘va de soi’ as to Paul's character. Secondly, the 
long interval between visions stamps them as quite exceptional and as 
having nothing to do with epilepsy, for an epileptic subject could never 
have gone through the long series of trials and privations and hardships 
which fell to the lot of Paul without a frequent recurrence of the malady. 
Nothing loth, however, Dean Inge continues (p. 52) : 
“At that time anyone who underwent a psychical experience, for 
which he could not account, believed that he was possessed by a spirit 
good or bad.” 
This is the modern method of argument. If the epilepsy suggestion 
does not work, fall back on a statement such as this, to destroy man’s 
belief in anything superterrestrial. In plain English: “If Paul’s visions 
were not due to epilepsy, at any rate he was mistaken in thinking he 
had been near the third Heaven or had any intercourse with the unseen 
world.” Or in other words: ‘‘ We plain matter-of-fact twentieth-century 
theologians reduce all these things to terrestrial terms. We have nothing 
to do with the extra-terrestrial. We profess to believe in God and Jesus 
Christ whom He has sent from Heaven, but really we do nothing of the 
kind. We would like to, but the full evidence, you know, is wanting, and 
pending further light we must just behave like common-sense mortals.” f 
Not content with the denial of the reality of Paul’s communion with 
Christ, Dean Inge also falls foul of St. Luke's predilection for the saper- 
natural. He has entirely failed to see that if a physician can believe in the 
supernatural a churchman can also do so, but, as I say, that is beyond the 
churchman of today. He sees the miracle of the awakening Spring and 
‘* passes by on the other side,” seeking and praying for “‘ more light.” 
This is what the Dean has to say of St. Luke (p. 48) : “...amanof very 
attractive character; full of kindness, loyalty and Christian charity. He 
is the most feminine (not effeminate) writer in the New Testament, and 
shows a marked partiality for the tender aspects of Christianity. He is 
attracted by neivacles and by all that makes history picturesque and 
romantic,” This sounds delightful, but wait only a few lines (p. 49): 
“The narrative is coloured in places by the historian’s love for the 
miraculous.” Qur critic, observe, does not in his certificate of good 
character say that St, Luke is either ‘sober’ or ‘ truthful.’ 


+ One of these days, ianese er,a man who does not believe i in iicetent or anything 
extra-terrestrial, will be considered crude, ignorant, uneducated and incapable of appre- 
hending inter-cosmic phenomena (see article by Sir Wm. Barrett, F-B.8., in Contemporary 
Review for June 1914). 

21 





462 , CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


According to the Dean he is neither. The Dean, like Robinson 
“Smith, makes no apology for calling St. Luke a liar. And I make no 
apology for putting this plain interpretation into the Dean’s mouth, for 
here is what he says (only seven lines further down) : 

“ The Greek historian invented speeches for his principal characters ; 
this was a conventional way of elucidating the situation for the benefit 
of his readers. Everyone knows how Thucydides, the most conscientious 
historian in antiquity, habitually uses this device, and how candidly he 
‘explains his method. WE CAN HARDLY DOUBT THAT THE AUTHOR OF 
Acts t HAS USED A SIMILAR FREEDOM, though the report of the address 
to the elders of Ephesus reads like a summary of an actual speech.” 

Could disguised venom, wrapped up in the soft qualifying and slightly 
guarded phrases of the modern school, go further ? 

This kind of thing ecclesiastics do not seem to consider either 
dangerous or heretical. I write as a layman and I solemnly assure them 
that they will reap a whirlwind from this wicked sowing. For wicked 
seeds they are, put forth for our comfort and edification (God save 
the mark !). 

Can it be possible that ecclesiastics not only forget the Master’s 
admonitions “ Let your communication be yea yea, pay nay, for whatso- 
ever is more than these (wepsocdv tovtwy) is from evil (€« tod movnpod 
éorw),” but that they scurrilously suggest that our Lord’s own sub-followers 
were addicted to falaehood and to the literary affectations of the times in 
delivering their solemn message? Messieurs les Ecclésiastiques, allow 
me as a layman to say that such a suggestion is not only unworthy but 
scandalous. And you have no proofs of it to offer. 

What you do offer us is an extrinsic and emasculated Christianity as 
far removed from the real thing as is your own doctrine from that which 
you impnte to Paul with his pure mysticism (p. 53), ‘‘ The mystical 
doctrine of the Spirit of Christ immanent in the soul of the believer, a 
conception which was the core of St. Paul’s personal religion,” only you 
spoil it by using the expression “a conception,” as if Paul had ‘conceived ’ 
it and it was not after all real ! : 

Away with your half-truths and your innuendoes or you will soon 
preach to empty benches. 

The early Church which lived according to the precepts of the 
Didache had many notable Evangelists besides St. Paul. Like some of 
Panl’s letters their names have perished or are only briefly recorded in 
the lists of Paul’s co-workers, but who can stand in the silent chambers 
of the p-ivate burial places of great Roman-Christian citizens of the first 
century and not realize that Peter's message, as well as Paul’s, that the 





t Just above, the Dean practically admits the Lucan authorship of Acts. (This 
comparison with Thucydides evidently comes direct from the classroom of some 
University lecturer.) 





EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 483 


messages of Luke and Mark and John and Justus, and Apollos, as well as 
those of Timothy, of Silvanus, of Philemon and Sosthenes, of Titus and 
Onesiphorus, Urbanus and Stachys and Apelles, of Crescens and Clement, 
of Tychicus and Artemas, of Erastus and Trophimus, of Ampliatus, of 
Persis, of Zenas and Apollos, of Archippus, of Epaphroditus, Epaphras 
and Aristarchus, of Philologus, of Asyncritus and Patrobas, of Epaenetus, 
Rufus, Hermes, Hermas, Phlegon, of Eubulus, Pudens and Linus, of 
Tertius Paul’s scribe, of Apphia, Prisca and Aquila, of Claudia, of Phebe, 
of Tryphaena and Tryphosa and Julia, contributed to the continuity of 
the Christian Church apart from Paul himself. 

These all standing shoulder to shoulder f fought the heretics of that 
day: Hymenaetus and Philetus, Phygellus and Hermogenes, Demas and 
the rest. They fought them to a standstill for a time. But we,—we,— 
we dally with heresies and toy with fire. I do not lay myself open to 
the rebuke that the above-named represent St. Paul’s own converts, for 
they do not, all of them. Besides St. Paul confesses himself to have 
been refreshed by others (1 Cor. xvi. 17) : ‘‘ But I rejoice at the presence 
of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Archaicus, for that which was lacking 
on your part these have fulfilled. For they have refreshed (dvémavaar) t 
my own spirit as well as yours (wal 7d duav). Recognise therefore such 
as these (good) men.” 

Their preaching must then have been, like that of Paul himself, 
productive of far-reaching results. 

Again (Rom. xvi. 7): “ Salute Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen, 
and my fellow prisoners who are of note among the apostles, who also 
have been in Christ before me.’ 

Two things stand out here, first that some of Paul’s kinsfolk were 
of the Faith, and secondly a humble recognition that he, Paul, was still 
the “ least of the Apostles,” and that the other workers were doing as 
great a work as he himself. 

Has the Dean forgotten St. Paul’s growth in grace? As his 
ministry flourished, so he bimself becomes more humble. As Christ 
from the ‘good shepherd’ (John x. 11) becomes the ‘great shepherd’ 
(Heb. xiti. 20) and then the ‘chief shepherd’ (1 Pet. v. 4), so St. Paul 
decreases: a.D.57 ‘‘I am the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. xv. 9) 

A.D. 61/3 “less than the least of all saints” (Eph. iii. 8) 
A.D. 65? “...sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. i. 15) 
In the light of this what does Dean Inge’s sentence mean on p. 54 ?— 
“It does not seem likely that a man of so lofty and heroie character 
was ever seriously troubled with ignominious temptations.” 





t Didache’!.? ruxvas. “munvas 36 cuvayOnoecOe (yrodvres ra dyjxovra rais Wuyxats 
bpav.” 

¢ The same word as at Matt. xi. 28 ‘Come unto me all ye that labour and are 
heavy laden and I wil? give you rest.” 


212 


484 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES, 


Yet he starts his article thus (p. 45): 

“With St. Paul it is quite different. He is a saint without a 
lominous halo. His personal characteristics are too distinct and too 
human to make idealisation easy. For this reason he has never been 
the subject of popular devotion. Shadowy figures like St. Joseph and 
St. Anne have been divinised and surrounded with picturesque legends ; 
but St. Paul has been spared the honour or the ignominy of being coaxed 
and wheedled by the piety of paganised Christianity.” 

It is Inge therefore who in the sentence on p. 54 elevates St. Paul 
further above other mortals than the Church has ever elevated St. Joseph 
or St. Anne! 

Tis a curious bit of writing on p. 54, and implies a strange sub- 
conscious strain in the mind of the Dean. 

But if St. Paul “ turned the world upside-down ” it was only to assist 
in founding through others the glorious heritage which is ours to-day, 
not by human agency, not by any St. Paul—as Drews and Inge suggest— 
but by Divine agency permitting certain instruments to stand out above 
others, but only “ by permission.” 

This article by the Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral is cold-blooded, and 
not really scholarly. The whole message is tinged with phrases which 
sound ill in a Dean’s mouth. ' 

Thus his disquisition on the God of the Old Testament (p: 54/55) is 
& lurid example of what not to write. ‘‘ The distinctive feature of the 
Jewish religion is not, as is often supposed, its monotheism... And 
when Jahveh became more strictly ‘the only God,’ the cult of inter- 
mediate beings came in and restored a quasi-polytheism...” What is 
the Dean talking about? Of Israel's pure religion or of its lapses ? 

This is dealing with the matter from a purely literary standpoint, a 
point of view which ruined Westcott and Hort’s work on the New 
Testament text, and a standpoint which is as foreign to the spirit of 
the glorious Gospel as anything that can well be imagined. To become 
entangled in folk-lore and to dissociate Paul’s personal religion from 
his teaching (pp. 53, 63, 66) is undignified, to say the least. 


Progress is barred, gentlemen, unless we return to the “old paths,” 


for there can be nothing new in the religion of Jesus Christ. Hither 
there was one authoritative revelation, and one sacrifice once for all, or 
there was not. No via media exists. All this beating about the bush leads 
but to confusion and apostasy, ‘‘and if the righteous scarcely be saved, 
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ?”’ (1 Peter iv. 18). There 
is one royal road and only one, and that was clearly indicated by others 
besides St. Paul. If Paul had never lived the message would have lived on. 
Therefore when Dean Inge, following Drews, says: 

“ Tt is impossible to guess what would have become of Christianity if he 

(Paul) had never lived; we cannot even be sure that the name of Jesus 

would still be honoured among men,” 


EPILOGUE. DEAN INGE ON ST. PAUL. 485 


we lift our hands in horror and exclaim: Is this a Dean writing? Is this 
his message of consolation to the afflicted, the sin-sick and the sorrowful? 
Has he understood his hero at all if he writes thus of him? ‘Would not 
St. Paul himself be the most shocked of all of us to read this utter reversal 
of the divine order of events ? 

The Dean means (I will presume this in all charity) that St. Paul 
was the instrument chosen of God to be the chief missionary to the 
nations. If he means only this it is nothing new, and no new discovery 
of these latter days ! 

But if he means that Paul by a series of fortuitous visions during 
epileptic attacks had false views, had imaginary communion with Jesus 
Christ, preached a pure but vain Gospel on shadowy grounds, was not 
“a chosen vessel” but a self-appointed advocate of a religious mystery- 
cult, and but for this delusion would never have preached and written, 
and that it was owing to St. Paul’s delusions that the western world 
embraced Christianity, then I say it is time to call halt and ask these 
clerics to put their articles into plain and unphilosophical English that 
we may understand, we laymen, what is before us, and decide whether 
or not to leave “ the Church.” 

In the words of Jeremiah (xxiii. 32): 

Behold, Iam against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, 
and do tell them, and cause my people to err by thetr lies and by their 
lightness ; yet I sent them not nor commanded them ; therefore they shall 
not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. 


Let us turn on the other hand to a more helpful view of such 
matters. : _ 

When a Frenchman applies himself seriously to a deep study I find 
his reasoning more cogent, his conclusions more exhaustive, his explana- 
tions more luminous, his summaries more definite, and his entire critical 
attitude more scientific and profound than the similar series of mental or 
psychic efforts on the part of a German, an Englishman, or an American. 

I would therefore commend a very biight comprehensive and 
thorough-going synopsis of New Testament criticism by André Arnal, 
Professor of Theology at Montauban, which reached me recently from 
a friend, and which appeared in the mid-February number for the 
current year of a periodical called For ev Viz, published in Paris. The 
article is entitled ‘Le Nouveau Testament devant la critique,” and will 
help many to a clearer view of the great issues which are so often confused 
and befogged in the mass of semi-philosophical and pseudo-scientific 
critical literature which rushes at us from every corner of so-called 
Christendom. 

I will quote one pregnant sentence towards the close of this twenty- 
two column article, and urge my readers to obtain and read the whole 
article for themselves. It will do them good, from Dr. Sanday and 


486 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


‘Dr. Harnack down through the rank and file of our critics. They will 
probably agree with every word which Dr. Arnal has printed, and yet 
their doctrine is not set forth at all in the same way. We miss the’ 
dignified constructive character in their works. 

Here is Dr. Arnal’s summary : 

“Ti faut qu’au savoir parfois un peu amer que donne la critique 
s’ajoute le savoir, infiniment plus précieux, que. donne Vexpérience 
teligieuse personnelle ; 4 l'étude qui veut comprendre doit s’unir la pritre 
qui ne veut qu’adorer. Les deux ne sont pas nécessairement liées : ¢’est 
pourquoi tl y a des savants qui manquent de fot, et des croyants qui 
manquent de connaissance. Ni L’UN NI L’AUTRE CONDITION NE SONT 
ENVIABLES POUR QUI VEUT 2TRE UN TEMOIN DU CHRIST...” 

“Neither the one (attitude) nor the other condition is desirable for 
anyone who wishes to be a witness for Christ.” This is a true saying. 
The “savants qui manquent de foi” are summed up in 2 Tim. iii. 7: 
“* Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 
In the same chapter the “croyants qui manquent de connaissance ” are 
assured that the real man of God, to .be ‘complete and thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works,” must be thoroughly ‘versed in the 
Scriptures. 

So, insensibly, Dr. Arnal almost uses the language of this Pastoral 
Epistle to illustrate his point, and yet we are asked by such as Dean 
Inge to doubt that St. Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. “Well, if he did 
not, a greater than Paul then was faithful enough to warn us of the last 
times !—to warn us of those “ having a form of godliness but denying 
the power thereof,” and so we find that if Paul had never lived, the name 
of Jesus would not have been forgotten among men, for the writer of the 
Pastoral Epistles has kept alive the deepest truths and teachings of the 
Christian religion. 

Sublime epistles! whether of Paul or of Apollos or of another mighty 
servant of God! 

Did a second-century forger then invent the introductions to both 
epistles ?— 

(i Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God 
our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ which is our hope, unto 
Timothy my own son in the faith. ... 

(2 Tim.) Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to 
the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy my’ 
- dearly beloved son. 

Perish the thought that “ies: ‘sublime prologues of “ life ” and 
“hope” in Christ Jesus should not be from the pen of Paul. But,—if 
they and the epistles themselves are not of Paul, then Dean Inge’s | 
contention falls to the ground of its own false-weight, for the name of 
Christ would have lived on among men by means of these.short and 
superb epistles, even if Paul's other universally acknowledged Heres 
had perished, or if he himself had never lived. 


EPILOGUE. CONCLUSION, 487 


Conclusion. 


Our daily actions are based as much on the experience of the past 
and upon the probabilities of the future as upon our own knowledge 
of what a day may bring forth. We live, in other words, by Faith. 
But Faith seems to have abandoned the circles where the cult of 
both the higher and the lower criticism flourishes. Those in these 
circles desire facts and tangible proof, like Thomas, demonstra- 
tive evidence, texpnpiov as St. Luke calls it (Acta i. 3), and do not 
seem to seek this evidence in the proper direction. To revive the 
Egyptian textual standard of a.p. 200-400 is not scientific, and it is 
certainly not final. The truth is scattered over all our documents and 
is not inherent entirely in any one document, nor in any two. Hort 
persuaded himself that where NB were together (as for jjpev instead of 
aipe: at John x. 18) they must be right. This kind of fetichism must be 
done away with. Other documents having the same base must be con- 
sulted for the necessary “control” in these passages of N and B, sach as 
the cursives 892 and Paris”. Nor can we lightly disregard W when in 
opposition to XB. 

A reference to the quotation from Hippocrates on our title-page may 
not be out of place here. The aphorism was well rendered into French. 
by A. de Mercy in 1811: 

La vie est courte, l'art est long, Voccasion passe vite, Vexpérience est 
trompeuse, le jugement difficile. 

Le médecin doit non-seulement faire ce qui convient, 1L DOIT ENCORE, | 
FAIRE CONCOURIR LE MALADE et ceux qut l’entotrent et les choses externes. 


Oh for the Faith of him healed by Peter and John in the name of 
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene,” the result of which is described by St. Luke 
in the medical term odoxAnpia “ perfect soundness” (Act iii. 16). May 
‘perfect soundness ” in matters of doctrine and of criticism be restored to 
us, so that like another blind man healed by the Nazarene Himself ina 
twofold operation, we may ‘look up and see all things clearly ” (Mark 
vili. 25). 

Enp oF Parr I. 


Toank Gop, ALL THE SHIFTING TO AND FRO OF TEXTS, ALL RECENSIONS AND 
REVISIONS, AND ALL VARIOUS READINGS, CANNOT TOUCH OR ALTER THE WHOLE BODY OF 
TRUTH aS WE HAVE IT REVEALED TO Us IN Hoty Scripture; BUT THE SLUMBERING 
DEPTHS OF Gop's ETERNAL COUNSELS SHALL REMAIN EVER SAFE FROM THE RIPPLES MADE 
BY THE BREATH OF MAN ON THE SURFACE oF His Worp.—S. C. Malan. From the 

Preface to‘ St. John’s Gospel translated from the eleven oldest versions,’ London, 1862. 


488 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


Referring to pp. 252/255 in re meps ox vrep, it is to be noted that 
in the fragment of an “ uncanonical Gospel” just published (Vol. X., 
March 1914, Oxyr'*) by Grenfell and Hunt, we meet with the expression, 
on folio 2 recto col. 1: 


Kat mpoceuxecbe urep Tav exOpav vpav © 
and the general language of the fragmentary context of this early 


fourth-century document is more akin to St. Luke’s diction than to 
St. Matthew’s. 


( 489 ) 


GENERAL INDEX. 


N > Preface p. iiet passim Vide Part U1. . 

&, methods of 45 4647 50 54note 58 89 94 118 129note 147 (viii. 7) 228 note 239 257 809 and note 
828 332 837 note 853 note 856 392 394 400 407 426, and see Part II. 

N and B, differences between Introduction p. viii, TS note, and Part EH. 

Abbott, Edwin A. 883 341 

Accusative absolute, see “ Change of case.” 

Addition for the better 278 295 

Addition for the worse 295 

Additions and omissions, oscillation between 289 

Aethiopic 28 79 347 485s8eq passim, et cf. Part IT. 

Alexandria and Carthage 199 205 

Alexandrian text and readings 9 1lseg 27and note 75 note 80 81 91 110 202 250 266 290 816 855 
962 372 373 374 887 416 note 422 459 et alibi 

Alexandrian writers and critics 41 66 149 note 265 846 876 note 461et alibi 

Amélinean 853 355 360 371 469 

Amphilochius 19 et alibi 

Anacoluthon 276 

“Anceps™ 315 et alibi 

Anne, St. 484 

Antioch revision Preface p. iii, 85 39 42 47 55 79 110 290 243 246 248 250 251 270 286 814 324 
329 850 355 862 863 875 407 439 457 459 ef passim 

amak Acyonevor 294 

Aphraates 453 

Aristides 4292/8 

Aristotle 412 

Armenian 3843 et passim 

Arnal, Dr, André 485 seg 

Article (definite Greek), adding or withholding 74 190/1 218 note 290 272 279 298 302 308 

Article (indefinite Coptic) 218 279 876 et alibi 

Athanasius 11 12 efc. 27 note 29 203 299 807 374 393 420 422 452 et saepe 

Athenagoras 424/5 7 

Augustine 85 108 279 436 

‘“ Authorised” version 305 322 350 

aand B® 54note 236 344 369 et alidé 

aandD® 127and note 128 140 16Lnote 178 

aya0os and «ates 202 note 

aAaand ey 150 

adda ye (xar) 293 

avev and xwp:s 202 note 

awaytaw and veavraw 248¢q 

axevavri and xarevavts 31/2 

axpt, see under ews 


B passim; cf. 268 
B, the corrector of 325 


490 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


B, photographic edition 48 269 270 

Band toh 6 et alibi 

Banda 654note 286 $44 869 ef alibi 

B Sinai and Alexandria 318 

Band Origen in conflict 69 seg (Matt), 121 seq (Mark), 237 297 seq (Luke), 408 (John) * 

B alone followed by W-H (not counting evidence new since Hort’s death] 28 5 6 19 28 8274 80 81 
83 85 (marg) 209.(pluries) 211 212 218 (215) (226) 227 298 287 249 
255 259 260 275 278 299 300 802 808 805 806 807 808 809 810 815 
317 318 319 882 834 351 400 


BA » oo 9 895 

BY » 4» » » 26 19 20 29 G1 68 78 93 92 120 B11 214 217 219 295 297 298 285 237 
240 261 296 900 302 807 812 322 825 327 354 870 978 888 400 

BNL, 4,» 5),_-—*'119 174 211 283 957 258 961 278 280 290 307 817 818 406 

BC os -~—«:8 299 808 810 $25 331 396 351 et alibi 

BL , » 4 » 222 80 211 218 215 296 bis 256 258 906 807 822 $28 992 

BE 5 ow 2 212 268 887 ete. 

BE, ons 209 251 

BLE ,, » oo 248 

BLX ,, » 987 


B outside the Gospels 416 seq 

Badham, F.P. 473 note 

Barnabas 419 477 

Barnard, P.M. Introduction p. ix, x, 75 200/83 and 208 note 212 270 877 

Basic text 272 et passim 

Bebb, L. J. M. Introduction p. ix note 

Belsheim 123 note 144 note 

Birch 101 167 

Blass 1 72 126 139note 147 note 247 264 281 285 286 299 294 457 458 

Bloomfield 177 : 

Bohairio, date of 28 79 85 86 87 89 100 108 105 228 236 264 297 $18 99 831 982 400 422 496 
» influence of 79 144 et alibi 

Bornemann 55 293 

Bracketed clauses 321 

Buchanan, E.8. 158 and note 165 172 301 383 

Burgon, Dean Introduction p. x, 35 68 307 827 381 383 835 note 891 394 415 

Burkitt, F.C. Preface p. v, vi, Introduction p. ix, x, 18 26 68 121 note 318 324 847 357 note 377 
880 402 408 445 447 462 473 

Buttmann 147note 281 

bin Mark 107 129 seq 173 note 183 note 443 454 etc. 

band din Mark 131 

b at Luke xxiii. 34; 413 note 


C (the manuscript) 199 et alidé 
er 445 seg et alibi 
Case, change of, sea below. 
Catacombs 107 1380/1 
Celsus iii 70 
Change of case 82 85 seq (Matt) 88 67, 95 seg (Mark), 246 (Luke) 281 283 290 291 292, 311 856 seq 
(John) 361 396 é 
»  » Gender 84 98 250 
» », Mood 29 33 (Matt), 92 (Mark), 243 (Imke) 296 323 349 (John) 417 
» » Dumber 38 (Matt) 89 51, 96 seg (Mark), 241 249 (Luke), 349 955 (John) 374 865 495 
» Order 39 (Matt) 57 58 61, 98seq (Mark), 255 (Luke) 280 284 801 308 805 309 312 314 826 
828 382 386 863 (John) 378 879 
» » Order, involving change of sense 40 3238/4 
» » Person = 860 
1») possessive pronoun 361 371 seg 
» 9, Bense 40 235 204 
»  » tense 88 seg (Matt) 57, 93seq (Mark) 113, 243 (Luke) 262 263 904 305 906 98 888 389 
349 seq (John) 400 417 
»  » tense (historic presenta) 41 seq (Matt), 101 seq (Mark) 122 194, 321 note 848 858 seq (John) 


GENERAL INDEX. 491 


Change of voice 82/33 (Matt), 91 seg (Mark), 242 (Luke), 323 827 389 348 (John) 418 

Change without improvement 119 800 840 853 354 396 

Chase, see “ Ely, Bishop of ” 

Chrysostom 364 403 436 ct alibi [see Parti II. in St. John] 

Charch Fathers, Language of 159 195 seq 205 389 

Church of Rome xii/xiii 8 

Clement of Alexandria Introduction p.ix, 20 182 159 198/204 201 note 212 252 254 and note 270 
298 299 331 419 et passim 

Clement of Rome 188 194 202 note 243 419 seq 467 

Coincidences 28 

Comparative or positive 201 203 note 

Compound Verbs, see under ‘* Verbs” 

Conflation 74 112 147 168 183 note 185 251 259 note 296 323 (Soden) 327 365 373 378 et alibi 

Confusion of eye in writing, or of ear from dictation 77 83 167 185 190 216 219 

Confusion from diglots 85 86 95 226 231 

“Const.” 197note 413 note 

Construction 321 et alibi 

Cook, Canon 9 10 210 256 274 347 

Coptic (overlying and underlying) 82note 

Coptic sympathy with B 20 seq (Matt), 79 sey (Mark), 208 227 seq (Luke) 294, 317 seq (John) 320 
322 352 364 367 878 384 417 455 468 

Coptic and Latin with B 87 238 290 324 825/32etc, 

Coptic, real situation as to B and Coptic 22 40note 79 64 85 227 228 231 232 248 256 259 260 268 
288 284 325and note 326 328 330 352 

Copulas 322 3838/4 388 394 895et alibi Vide Part IT. p. 197/8 

Coram 89/90 179 

Cronin, H.S, i23note 144 note 188 

Crogs-questioning of witnesses 195 (quotation) 

Crum and Kenyon Preface p. v, 317 

Cursive testimony, see under “ Importance of" 

Cyprian 14 55et saepe 

Cyril of Alexandria 306 note 809 316 318 359 392 896 400 418¢é alidi 

cin Mark 132 


D, idiosyncrasies of 129note 173 note 326 note 460 c¢ alibé 
D and the Greek article 180 181 
Dand Egypt 204 et alibi 
Dand Origen 159 
Dd in Mark 107 127 seq 173 195 seg 
Sin Mark 72 105 110 118 note 119 123 204 note 
Dative absolute, see ‘* Change of Case ” 
Dative for genitive 356 
Decretum Gelasii Preface p. iii 
Diatessaron Introduction p. xiii, 45 77 230 827 366 484 seq 464 et alibi 
Diction of Mark, see under Mark 
» 1» Luke, ,, 5, Luke 
» » John, ,, 4, John 
» » Paul, , 4, Paul 
Didache 482 483 
Dionysius of Alexandria 197 note 198 265/6 
Doctrinal 815 399 419/20 
“Doric” 275 and note 
Dorotheus Preface p, iii 
Double Greek negative 189 
Double meanings 30 80 142 169 183 and note 
Double readings 174/6 
Drews 474 seq 
JiarpeBw and neve 402 


‘ Easier” readings 120 292 831 et alibi 
Editing by B 14 (Matt), 74 (Mark), 208 (Luke), 299 (John) 372 


492 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Egyptian revision Preface p. iii, iv, v, 85 89 44 47 81 83 96 229 291 289 256 271 286 864 370 400 
415 et passim 


Ellipsis 838 399 840 ¢¢ alibi 
Ely, Bishop of 408 
Ephesians 476 
Ephrem 347 et alibi 
Epilepsy 490 481 
Epiphanius 26 42 268 927 etc. 
Hrasmus 456 
Error oculi 86 91 181 note 216 291 236 257 269 277 284 294 318 320 328 836 843 364/5et lids 
Euphony 898 et alibi 
Eusebius 203 210 262 294 862 443 note et alibi 
Eustathius 26 and note 213 note 493 
Evang. Ebion. 15 71 
Evang. Hebr. $25 
Evan, 22: 56 
» 28: Introduction p, viii, 98note 97 187/8 et passim 
»  88and Origen: Introduction p. viii, 4 ete. 
w» 1ST: Preface p. v, 101 206 208 et passim 
» 604: 187 188 255 note et alibi 
»» 892: Introduction p. viii, 263 note 270 272 et passim 
» 579 (Paria*’): Introduction p. viii, 111 et passim 
n 597: 286 note 
2: 188 et alibi 
é and RN 809 et saeps 
eandNB 28 e¢ saepe 
eand W 72seq 173 196/7 
eand Cypr 289 
eynoraand xuedw 195 144 167 
ewaga and eimovca 838 
astro 2438/4 
exeyos 332/4 
eAryna ond pryna 400 
¢pxpoader, evarrioy, evarmioy 89/90 179/80 , 
efarwa and evdews 149 
eteorsy and proper case following 281/38 
euKoweTepoy, evnorws, Taxoy, paoy And barroy 201 203 
eas, ews ob, or ews dy 6 7 220 2291/4 


Facilius 201 
Ferrar 875 
Form 23 note 80 58 59 89 214 242 809 337 888 seq 416 


Galen 46 412 

Genitive absolute 187 246 S61 etc. ; see * Change of case” 
Genitive before the noun 114 233 268 seq 264 340 847 362 et alibi 
Genitive for dative 859 

Georgian version $11 note $65 note 898 394 et alibt 

Gersdort 264 

Glazebrook, Canon 304 note 

Gospel order 478 note 

Gospels copied separately Introduction p. ix 

Gothic version 319ncte 322 489 et alibi 

Grammatical changes $2 seq (Matt), 67 91 seq (Mark), 242seq (Luke), 885 .8eq 846 seq (Johu) 
Greek recensions in Mark differing 140 seq 

Gregory, C. BR. 27 48 144 185 note 220 note 360 note 437 440 
Grenfell and Hunt Iniroduction p. viii seq 488 

Griesbach 50 

Gwilliam, G.H. 52 360. 

yryvouas and ell 409 

ywera/eyevero 137 181 note 407 seg 


GENERAL INDEX. 493 


darder” readings 97 106 120 258 271 292 356 379 386 460 

wmonistic 44 seg (Matt), 88 87 104 seq (Mark) 121 208 211 253 254 267 (Luke) 291 324 343 
872 (John) 382 419 

srcia, J, Rendel Introduction p. viii, 30note 73 75 84 126 129 note 140 174 195 378 403 note 434 

wttmann, Ed. von (quoted by Drews) 474 

swking, Sir John 16note 41 67 92 101 115 116 127 130 193 194 16lnote 194 263 

mson, Hensley 422 and note 

wacleon 424 

armas 421 

sxsychius Preface p. iii, vi, Introduction p. xii, 290 414 

atus 123 215 292 (cf. etiam adda pro add’ alibi) 

igber Criticism 421/2 473 

ippocrates Titlepage, 46 409 note 412 487 

ippolytua 348 426 seq et alibi 

wstoric present, see under “ Change of tense ” 

obart, W. K. 41 note 46 248 

omoioarcton 844 

omoiotelenton 30 89 91 105 181 note 189 218 242 $23 324 330 3438 344 396 note 

opelessness of considering B neutral 961 371 et alibi 

omer, G. Preface p. ii, 16 note 20 28 29 S5note 60 63 73 80 81 87 101 107 108 121 note 144 note 
229 283 284 261 274 299 303 319 320 323 925 $38 344 360 note 886 389 414 422 437 442 444 
447, and in Part II. : 

ort's (De.) “ Critical Principles’ Introduction p. viii sez, p. lseqet passim ; et vide sub B: “Balona 
followed by W-H'"’ etc. 


olatry 478 
natius 33 52 213 419 seq 431 467 
aperatives, see under ‘‘ Change of tense” 
aperfect tense 41 42 93 102 104 262and note $21 note ef alibi 
oportance of cursive testimony viii 110 278 399 434 seg 459 
oprovement 380 85 40 48 seg (Matt) 79 107 seg (Mark) 121 211 272 (Luke) 337 850 351 355 359 
374 (John) 
tconsistency of W-H 269 292 et passim 
idefinite (Coptic) article, see under “ Article.” 
ideterminate passages 296 343 401/3 
tdirect oration 375 
ifinitives, see under ‘‘ Change of tense" 
ifinitive for the éay construction 92 94 
sf with and without ros 78 210 
is astowore ores to 243 
ige, Dean 474 seg 
Tonic” 108 
‘enseus 476 ef alibi 
‘ish texts in St. Mark 182 
acisms 349 
wala and DW 181/94 
wavds 456 seg 


abb, Professor 77 167 

srome, St. Preface p. iii, 96 119 188 165 202 401 

ohn’s (St.} diction 341 846 356 378 402 etc. 

oseph, St. 464 

oséphus 469 

ustin, martyr 14 69 70 198mote 205/6 254 255 266 419 seg 423 467 ef saepe 
ury, the Preface p. ii 255 467 

uvencus 17 38 et alibi 


cenyon, F.G. Preface p. v 
cnox, R. A. 470 note 
uy 456 seq 


494 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


Kypke 149note 

kandB l4et alibi 

kin St. Mark 191 note e¢ alibi 
kaxoroios etc, 392 

xados and ayafos 202 note 
xTnpara and xpnuara 15 199. 
auch and eyyiora 135 144 187 


Lake, K. 323 848 note 456 
Language of St. Mark, see under Mark 
Latin agreement of authorities 125 157 note 172 seq 
Latin basic 89/90 118 126 seg 172 seq 445 446 
Latin sympathy with B 17 seq (Matt), 76 seq (Mark), 217 seq (Luke), 310 seq (John) 343 354 359, aly 
Latin and Syriac opposed Introduction p. xtii, 279etc. ‘ re 
LauraA'* 156 note 165 note et passim 
Leipoldt $18 
Lewis, Mrs. 28 121 note 257 304 336 
Liddell and Scots 15 149note 337 et alibi 
Lindsay, Dr. 477 
« Liste” of passages : 
axayrnow/vrarrqow. 23/6 
axevarri/xarevarvts $1 82 90 xarevemiov 32 
yauos/ryngey 65 
evewa/eveney 49 
evuriov/euxpootey,'evaytiov 89 179 (coram, ante, in conspecta) 
exafexedy 65 
xpai/xpnas G4 
‘Longer’ text 200 203 236 286 288 291 297 and see Part II. 
«‘Lower” criticism 421/2 
Lucian Preface p. iii, iv, Introduction p. xii, 862 466 
Lucifer 426 et alibi 
Luke's diction 41 note 46 216 229 245 teq 200 408-seq 456 seq 457 seq 469seq 481/2 ef alidi 


Macarius 390 
Malan 3858 360 396 401 487 
Marcion 202 note 211 240 and note 261 276 287 298 428 seq 476 477 
Margin, the, and its uses 301 304 and note 307/9 344 et alibi 
Mark's diction 114 seq 133 seq 194 
. Mark’s Gospel, geographically considered 207 
Mark's Greek recension 118 122 124 126 140/71 
Mark’s Latin recension 126 seq 138 seq 
Mark's indebtedness to Matthew 473 
Marsh's Michaelis 149 note 
Marsh, Bishop 10 
Matthaei, 0. F. 167 317 364 383 393 435 455 456 457, Part IT. p. 356 
“Medical language of St. Luke 41 note 46 407 seq 
Mercati, Monsignor 440 
Mercy, A.de 487 
Methodius (225 247 and note 250 et alibi 
Merx, Adalbert Preface p. vi, 1 7 72 113 121note 122 128 188 145 208 238 257 283 290 295 535 
347-426 434 487 488 459 460/463 
Mill 396note 488 
Miracles 481 and note 
“*Modern” suggestions 478 481 
Mood, see “Change ot” 
Moulton, W. F. 92 116note 301 456 457 459 
Maralt 123 note 
Mystery religion 475 478 seq 
uweypt (seo under dws) 
werypa and edrypa 400 
Bixpy Bnd oAryory 202 note 


GENERAL INDEX. 495 


asseni 423 426 

gatives 2984/6 

stle, Dr. 1 133 note 

feutral” text 229 255 268 270 280 281 289 310 314 342 S47 368 875 380 387 396 401 420 422 
429 482 et passim 

Teutral” and “Western” 268 

ficeties " 58 59 65 243 262 280 283 294 301 376 420 et alibi 

onus $331 355 374 398 

mber, see ‘ Change of " and “ Transition of" 


vumenius 41 413 and note, and see Part II. p. 189 note 

tission for the worse 296 et alibi 

tative 92etc. (and sea under ‘* Change of mood "') 

jer, change of 20 21 89 etc, (see under ‘‘ Change of "’) 

gen Preface p. il, 2seq 8 87 60 122 199 155 note 159 210 218 note 252 note 268 272 283/9 298 
820 note 323 326 337 344 346 353 355 368 375 880 382 400 402 403/5 414 418 424 435 436 et 
passim (see also under B against Origen) 

igen’s “niceties 10 37 58 65 218 272 283 286 note 353 

)verwhelming evidence” 52 

yrynchus papyti Introduction p, viii seq 488 

aeanpia 487 

and rivas 1385/6 

rw and ot §=377 

reand cis to 243 seq 


chymius Preface p. iii 

airs" 10 Ll note 21 57 58 59 60 note 62 G3 64 108 113 118 121 128 214 272note 301 349 351 
855 865 376 378 380 381 383 384 3985 386 387 398/90 391 393 395 414 

pias 202 

pyri Introduction p. viiiseq, 41 167 266 

ris*’ 1211 336 note e¢ passim 

tticiples 336 (see under ‘‘ Change of tense”} 

rtitive genitive 38 212 274 461 

storal epistles 475 seq 

ul, St. (See St. Paul) 

rfect tense 939/40 349 ef alibi (gee under “ Change of tense”) 

ricope de adult, 934 

rsian version 15 80 261 303 306 308 382 368 394 396 404 435 436 437 439 439 440 441 442 443 
449 450et alibi 

ter of Alexandria 16 27 313 note 

eter, preaching of’ 423 note 

yron 229 

leas Preface p. iii 

ilemon, genuineness of 475 

wutus 133 note 176/7 notes 

aonasm, see ‘‘ Redundancy,” and for list of Marcan pleonasms 115 

lycarp 253 419 seg 

lyglot text 7 18 275 313 417 

ssessive before the noun 20 21 22 23 24 101 114 233 267 347 et alibi 

e-Alexandrian 270 etc. 

a-Syrian 270 374 ete, 

epositions 52 53 

FF (exchange of} 19 45 47 52 53 58 68 108 219 232 251/83 

inciples of criticism 1 seq 314 et alibt 

>rovincial’ handling 163 note e¢ alibé; see also Part II. r. 1 

uctuation 100 273 

wand veep 252/5 488 

0c, murky and wAynpow 341/2 

rvevxopa: 2399and note 252 

wrgwrew 289/90 


496 " CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. 


“Q” 41and note 472 


Ramsay, Sir W. 140 459 460 479 

Reason for writing this essay 110etc. 

Redundancy 651 54 104 112 115 116 118 128 190 201 note 203 269 278 277 279.293 

Retranslation 128 186 140/71 172 note 178 

Revised Version 66 107 120 268 278 303 805 310 813 814 815 819note $24 331 341 342 346 351 
354 359 860 369 371 878 377 880 883 384 395 899 note et alibi 

Robinson, Armytage (Dean of Wells) 423 


Sabatier 383 453 
Salmon, Dr. facing p. xvi, 1 8/9 347 
Sanders, H. A. 124 157note 200 414 
Schaaf 52 860 
Schmidtke, A.. 251 393 
Schmiedel, Dr. P. 23 
Scholz 50 138 167 835 344 488 440 455 
Scrivener, Dr. 109 167 315 321 note 383 893 457 498 
Semitic versions 375 et passim 
Septuagint 16note 41 49 53 55/59 63 90 94 113 149note 194 280 841 8938/9 419 . 
“Shorter” text 61 54 76 114 210 211 240 251 258 259 268 270 271 272 273 277 279 281 283 289 
801 818 369 429 seq 485 488 e¢ alibi; and see “ Longer” text. 
Smith, Robinson 469 seg 
Soden, Hans von 437 246 note 373 note 
»  Hermannvon 6 141 414 425 454 461 465 et passim (see also Part II. passim) 
» Review of 460 
Soleciams of B, see “ Unique readings” 
Souter, A. Preface p. iand note, ii, v, 8 24 27 48 73note 83 103/7 119 144 237 note 257 259 263 
988 $01 note 908 810 $18 814 318 981 841 342 845/7 877 878 891 note 332 383 385 note 891 
Spelling S88and note ef alibi; cf.‘ Form” 
St. Paul's conversion 480 
n  » diction 55/6 253 265 note 
Ne » family 479 483 
» » §rowth in grace 488 
»  » Janguage 479 
» » malady 480 
» on teaching 479: 
-y» Visions 480 481 
Bwete, Dr. Preface p. iti (and see Part I. p. 186 note) 
Symbols of mss 434 
Synonyms 81 seq (Matt) 46 49 55 65 67 73note 80 89 seg (Mark) 112 140seqg 201, 242 (Luke) 
. S11/18 840 seg (John) 403 416 
Synoptic accommodation .24 104 105 106 107 253 254 267 268 273 274 277 280 237 288 : 
Synoptic diction 15 26 27 81 32 33 38 41 note 48 46 48 61 64 67 68 83 84 97 123 185 211 212 
287 275 276 288 292 298 295 296 314 409 410 411 424 note 
Synoptic source 41 (and see under “ Harmonistic ”) 
Syriac interaction Introduction p. xiii 
Syriac and Latin opposed Introduction, p. xiii, 277 etc. 
Syriac and Latin with B against Coptic 241 
Syriac and Coptic with B against Latin 242 
Syriac Latin and Ooptic with B 241 289 
Syriac sympathy with B 28 seg (Matt), 88 (Mark), 231 (Luke) 240 274, 300 882(John) 943 


Tatian Introduction p, xii, xiii, 44 195 280 

Tense, see ‘‘ Change of ” 

Tertullian 14 55 182 14Onote 2904/5 208 219 249 250 276 300 301 303 329 356 859 ue = 
401 425 429note 449 463 464 471 473 476 ef saepe 

Textus receptas 435 seq 456 ¢t alibi 

Thackeray, F. St.J. l16note 264 281 293 

Theodore Preface p. iii 

Theodotus 4283/4 


GENERAL INDEX. 497 


Theophilus of Antioch 250 425/6 

Theophrastus 412 

Thucydides 482 

Tischendorf Preface p.v, 20 note 23 29 37 41 43 45 47 55 and note GO 80 83 86 87 93 94 100 note 
101 106 108 113 117 123 note 144 note 147 157 note 162 note 167 note 185 note 192 note 198 note 
196 note 200 204 note 205 213 nute 214 226 227 237 238 B44 259 263 269 273 275 273 290 283 
290 292 294 300 308 308 314 note 318 319 320 321 note 323 323 324 325 and note 326 328 note 
329 330 336 389 844 845 350 351 360 note 364 367 371 note 373 875 37Jand nota 383 885 note 


386 389 391 note 893 396 397 399 404 405 note 407 note 429note 432 435 436 487 438 440 442 
445 446 449 450 452 453 455 459 


Transition of number 55 seg 

Trogelles Y9 238 295 382 442 

Turner, C.H. Preface p. v, Introduction p. vii seq, 23 195 347 350 note 412 seq 427 428 457 
rexunpov 487 

twas and ois i und 385/6 

Towvy § 284 


Underlying Greck text 313 328 ct alidt 

Unique readings in B14 sey (Matt), 74 seq (Mark), 208 seq (Luke) 266, 299 sey (John) 
Suwr and dpi 356 seq 

vmep and zeps 252/5 488 


Valontinians 70 424 

Verbs, simple and compound Introduction p. x, 54 59 109 228 229 248 255 275 284/5 288 292 294 
344/7 (Jo, iv. 15) 

Verdict, the 465 

Versions, influence of 65/66 357/8 375 378 462 et passim 

‘Version tradition” 313 346 463 seq et alibi 

Vogels, H.J. 462 

Voice, see ‘‘ Chango of” 


W 727781 82note 99 102 note 118 136 143 150 151 173 183 289 note 24Onote 249 951 414 et alidé 
saepe 

Wb 178note 

Wd 182 

We 72 180 173 196/7 et sacpe 

Wdbe 78 199 200etc, 

**Wandorworte" 438 

Westcott 1839 406 

Western non-interpolations 27 

“Western” text 8 259 268 271 377 ct passim 

Wetstein 109 118 167 344 398 note 

Wiclif 56 note 

Winer, ‘Grammar’ of 57 note 92 Ut 218 note 264 291 285 296 203 301 456 457 458 

Wordsworth and Whito 54note 119 811 BUsnote 414 

Wordsworth, Bp. C. 476 note 477 


xpnmara and krypata 15 199 
xeps and avev 202 note 


For THE List OF SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS OCCURRING IN BOTH Pant I. and Part H, consucr 
THE INDEX at THE END oF VoLuUmx II. 


ve —- SS am )6hcraemlrrlhlhlmlmlC 
ee RS eS Aa hee OO a hl he Ee eS 
ee ee ere ns en es 
. Ane. - a4 a 7 oe ue _ 7 “ “. oe pan a ras Ste 


wap533 ee eae ee ee 


a 
ic 7 oT. ee - cao : = 2 pa a ee ae a 
‘a rey face fake ot Oe cat tad ee lad hid we ad af ed ad ia ad 
ad ol ee a8 ad eto a ad ee eS ee oes i 
a 


Sia ine eaean ainda iiads tone et 5 poets eta Pa tie ace! 
eee oo ee ee ee en ea es a 
en ver a Tia, Shy mee ie Piet crt eh 


2 Ae ie ei Mes * ae pL 


a . ee _ P > - vere. eosin o 
La ABH S i Sk Peer? Fen os 





TEXTUAL CRITICISM 


For those who are scholars, the Two Volume set 
Orelo(-) a = E-news 
(By University of Michigan Professor Herman 
Hoskier - 1914) is still among the best 
ro) clare lilo lalsme)mtalomlalelelsy-laleime)i 
(oXo)a}ie=\el (eile) atom ol=]NiUclsam Oxere(-) @ellar-lit(ee ly 
Flare Oxere(-) @'e-li(er- lal ele 


Author = Hoskier, H. C. (Herman Charles), b. 1864. 
Title: Codex B and its allies 
: a Study and an indictment 
by H.C. Hoskier; Publisher London : 
Bernard Quaritch, 1914. 


Author Burgon, John William, 1813- 1888. 

Wii d(=wm Mal=mer-l0ts\-1se) mm lal-mexe)ga0) e)i(e)ameymiar= 
traditional text of the Holy Gospels; being the 
sequel to the traditional text of the Holy Gospels. 
Publisher London, G. Bell, 1896. 


There is also the book the "Revision Revised” 
by Oxford Professor John William Burgon 
explains many of the problems 
of modern what is called Textual Criticism 
for those who seek information about 
Ancient Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament. 


WW alstox-m olele).<owr-l a> me) i(s)ame\'esll f-le)(>melalllaice 


Concerning History and the Early Church 


We recommend, for your potential consideration, 
the following books: 


1) The Seventh General Council (held 787 AD) in which the 
Worship of Images was established, with copious notes 
1ic0)a0 ia\>m@r-1c0)|[al-m ofele),<omere)anle)|(-10M oN me)ce(-1 me) i 
Charlemagne by Rev John Mendham - 1850 


2) Image worship in the Church of Rome by James Endell Tyler 


The image-worship of the Church of Rome : proved to be contrary 
to Holy Scripture and the faith and discipline of the primitive church 
FeValom CoMlanvZe)\ucmexe)alacclel(eqo)avar-lareMlac-revelaceyit-le)(-meleleiaial-\smiUiiallamialc) 
Church of Rome itself (1847) 


3) Primitive Christian Worship by James Endell Tyler 


Primitive christian worship, or, The evidence of Holy Scripture and 
the church, concerning the invocation of saints and angels, and the 
blessed Virgin Mary (1840) 


4) The worship of Mary by James Endell Tyler 


5) The Pope of Rome and the popes of the Oriental Orthodox 
Church 

by Caesarious Tondini (1875) also makes for interesting reading, 
even though it is a Roman Catholic work which was approved 
with the Nihil Obstat (not indexed by the inquisition) notice. 


THESE BOOKS are AVAILABLE For FREE ONLINE 


Concerning Christians and Christianity 


1. Christians are those who follow the teachings 
of Jesus Christ. 


2. The Teachings of Jesus Christ are explained in the 
book called the Gospel (Injil) or the New Testament. 


3. The New Testament is the First Place to find and record 
the teachings of Jesus Christ, by those who actually knew Him. 


4. The New Testament has never been disproved 
archeologically or historically. It has and remains accurate. 


5. The New Testament Predicts that certain events will happen in the 
Future. 


7. The Reliability of the Old Testament and the New Testament are 
clear indications of the accuracy of the New Testament. 


8. Jesus Christ did Not fail in His mission on Earth. 


9. Jesus Christ Pre-existed. This means that He existed BEFORE 
the Creation of the World. 


10. When Christians worship Jesus Christ, they are NOT worshiping 
another Human being. 


11. Jesus Christ did not become God by performing good works. 


12. Christians cannot perform good works in order to go to Heaven. Those 
who want to find God must admit they are not able to be Perfect or Holy, 
and that they need the help of God to help them get rid of their Sins. 


14. More than 500 Million Christians around the world today are NOT 
Roman Catholic. The Vatican does NOT speak for Christianity in many 
situations. 


Concerning Christians and Christianity (2) 


15. Judas did NOT die in the place of Jesus Christ on 
the cross. 


16. Jesus Christ had no motive to escape his fate. Jesus Christ 
was born to communicate His message of Hope and 
Redemption for mankind. 


17. Without the Blood of Jesus, it would be impossible for those 
who believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, to have Eternal Life. 


18. Christians worship ONE God, NOT three Gods. 

19. In True Christianity, Historically, the Trinity is = 

a) God the Father 

b) God the Son 

Cc) God the Holy Spirit 

20. The worship of Angels or Created Beings, or Creatures or anything 
except God (God the Father, God the Son [Jesus Christ], 

and God the Holy Spirit, is forbidden. 

21. The Trinity IS NOT = Mary, Joseph and Jesus 

22. The Trinity is NOT = Jesus, Joseph and God the Father 

23. Gabriel is NOT another name for Jesus Christ. 

24. Anyone can become a Christian if they want to. 

25. Christianity IS not something that can be done EXTERNALLY. 
A person is a Christian because of what they believe in their Heart, 


inside of them. Their own sincerity before God Is the true test. 


26. Those who accept an electronic mark [666] for the purchase of goods, 
in their right hand or forehead are NOT able to become Christians. 


Concerning History and the Roman Catholic Church 


ml tcicela (om laice)aaatcllelame)am lalcM mtelearslamer-liate)|(om@yalel ceva 
(ors lam elma ie)01a(e Mem lame)aliiatsmcyststaelal=tsmem Ol ale(s)mlarcmelce iow 


papal, roman catholic, papist, popish, 
romanist, vatican, popery, romish, 


There are many free Ebooks available 
ola) ilatsmclale MolmC(elele](-mlar-lmere)i=1mlalosyom 0) 0)(e1s8 


a Mal-lco Momo) merelUlectomlaromcyrclarel=lce| 
works on the proven history of the Vatican: 


The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, which uses 
raate)asmtat-lanr-aelem-larel(aim mrs Uilale- [ale O1a=X-),@ciel0 keroio 


a Malem (o)aatstamerevaltcianmillerieecticve mice leamdalsMmtsvere) gels) 


{eM Ualom =t-ld\Yalm(°)Anl-lamer-luale)i(omeral¥lcea 
by Rev. Perceval. 


ai aleks\-m iV alem are \Acmicelele)(-m dliaMaye-liler=lame(ele0 | tal -yalecmere)alex=)aal are) 
early Church Councils should conduct their own research 
into a document called the "Donation of Constantine", 

which was the false land grant from the Roman Emperors 
item aTome- liter lap 





Saved - How To become a 
Christian 
how to be saved 


A Christian is someone 
who believes the 
following 


Steps to Take in order to become a 
true Christian, to be Saved & Have a 
real relationship & genuine 
experience with the real God 


Read, understand, accept and 
believe the following verses from 
the Bible: 


1. All men are sinners and fall short 
of God’s perfect standard 

Romans 3: 23 states that 

For all have sinned, and come short of 
the glory of God; 


2. Sin - which is imperfection in our 
lives - denies us eternal life with 
God. But God sent his son Jesus 
Christ as a gift to give us freely 
Eternal Life by believing on Jesus 
Christ. 


Romans 6: 23 states 

For the wages of sin is death; but the 
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. 


3. You can be saved, and you are 
saved by Faith in Jesus Christ. You 
cannot be saved by your good 
works, because they are not "good 
enough". But God’s good work of 
sending Jesus Christ to save us, 
and our response of believing - of 
having faith - in Jesus Christ, that is 
what saves each of us. 


Ephesians 2: 8-9 states 

8 For by grace are ye saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is 
the gift of God: 

9 Not of works, lest any man should 
boast. 


4.God did not wait for us to become 
perfect in order to accept or 
unconditionally love us. He sent 
Jesus Christ to save us, even 
though we are sinners. So Jesus 
Christ died to save us from our sins, 
and to save us from eternal 
separation from God. 


Romans 5:8 states 

But God commendeth his love toward 
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us. 


5. God loved the world so much that 
He sent his one and only Son to die, 
so that by believing in Jesus Christ, 
we obtain Eternal Life. 


John 3: 16 states 

For God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life. 


6. If you believe in Jesus Christ, and 
in what he did on the Cross for us, 
by dying there for us, you know fora 


fact that you have been given 
Eternal Life. 


| John 5: 13 states 

These things have | written unto you 
that believe on the name of the Son of 
God; that ye may know that ye have 
eternal life, and that ye may believe on 
the name of the Son of God. 


7. If you confess your sins to God, 
he hears you take this step, and you 
can know for sure that He does hear 
you, and his response to you is to 
forgive you of those sins, so that 
they are not remembered against 
you, and not attributed to you ever 
again. 


| John 1:9 states 

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and 
just to forgive us our sins, and to 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 

If you believe these verses, or want 
to believe these verses, pray the 
following: 

" Lord Jesus, | need you. Thank you 
for dying on the cross for my sins. | 
open the door of my life and ask you 


to save me from my sins and give 
me eternal life. Thank you for 
forgiving me of my sins and giving 
me eternal life. | receive you as my 
Savior and Lord. Please take control 
of the throne of my life. Make me the 
kind of person you want me to be. 
Help me to understand you, and to 
know you and to learn how to follow 
you. Free me from all of the things in 
my life that prevent me from 
following you. In the name of the 
one and only and true Jesus Christ I 
ask all these things now, Amen". 


Does this prayer express your desire to 
know God and to want to know His love 
? If you are sincere in praying this 
prayer, Jesus Christ comes into your 
heart and your life, just as He said he 
would. 


It often takes courage to decide to 
become a Christian. It is the right 
decision to make, but It is difficult to 
fight against part of ourselves that 
wants to hang on, or to find against 
that part of our selves that has 
trouble changing. The good news is 


that you do not need to change 
yourself. Just Cry out to God, pray 
and he will begin to change you. 
God does not expect you to become 
perfect before you come to Him. Not 
at all...this is why He sent Jesus...so 
that we would not have to become 
perfect before being able to know 
God. 


Steps to take once you have asked 
Jesus to come into your life 


Find the following passages in the 
Bible and begin to read them: 


1. Read Psalm 23 (in the middle of 
the Old Testament - the 1st half of 
the Bible) 

2. Read Psalm 91 

3. Read the Books in the New 
Testament (in the Bible) of John, 
Romans & | John 

4. Tell someone of your prayer and 
your seeking God. Share that with 
someone close to you. 

5. Obtain some of the books on the 
list of books, and begin to read 


them, so that you can understand 
more about God and how He works. 
6. Pray, that is - just talk to and with 
God, thank Him for saving you, and 
tell him your 

fears and concerns, and ask him for 
help and guidance. 

7. email or tell someone about the 


great decision you have made today 
Wy! 


Does the "being saved" 
process only work for those 
who believe ? 


For the person who is not yet 
saved, their understanding of 
1) their state of sin and 2) God’s 
personal love and care for 
them, and His desire and 
ability to save them....is what 
enables anyone to become 
saved. 

So yes, the "being saved" 
process works only for those 


who believe in J esus Christ 
and Him only, and place their 
faith in Him and in His work 
done on the Cross. 


..and if so , then how does 
believing save a person? 


Believing saves a person because of 
what it allows God to do in the Heart 
and Soul of that person. 


But it is not simply the fact of a 
"belief". The issue is not having 
"belief" but rather what we have a 
belief about. 


IF a person believes in Salvation by 
Faith Alone in Jesus Christ (ask us 
by email if this is not clear), then 
That belief saves them. Why ? 
because they are magical ? 

No, because of the sovereignty of 
God, because of what God does to 
them, when they ask him into their 
heart & life. When a person decides 
to place their faith in Jesus Christ 


and ask Him to forgive them of 


their sins and invite Jesus Christ 
into their life & heart, this is what 
saves them — because of what God 
does for them at that moment in 
time. 


At that moment in time when they 
sincerely believe and ask God to 
save them (as described above), 
God takes the life of that person, 
and in accordance with the will of 
that human, having requested God 
to save them from their sins through 
Jesus Christ — God takes that 
person’s life and sins [all sins past, 
present and future], and allocates 
them to the category: of "one of 
those people who Accepted the Free 
Gift of Eternal Salvation that God 
offers”. 

From that point forward, their sins 
are no longer counted against them, 
because that is an account that is 
paid by the shed blood of Jesus 
Christ. And there is no person that 
could ever sin so much, that God’s 
love would not be good enough for 
them, or that would somehow not be 
able to be covered by the penalty of 


death that Jesus Christ paid the 
price for. (otherwise, sin would be 
more powerful than Jesus Christ — 
which is not true). 


Sometimes, People have trouble 
believing in Jesus Christ because of 
two extremes: 


First the extreme that they are not 
sinners (usually, this means that a 
person has not committed a "serious" 
sin, such as "murder", but God says that 
all sins separates us from God, even 
supposedly-small sins. We — as humans 
— tend to evaluate sin into more serious 
and less serious categories, because we 
do not understand just how serious 
"small" sin is). 


Since we are all sinners, we all have 
a need for God, in order to have 
eternal salvation. 


Second the extreme that they are 
not good enough for Jesus Christ to 
save them. This is basically done by 
those who reject the Free offer of 
Salvation by Christ Jesus because 
those people are -literally — unwilling 


to believe. After death, they will 
believe, but they can only chose 
Eternal Life BEFORE they die. 

The fact is that all of us, are not 
good enough for Jesus Christ to 
save them. That is why Paul wrote in 
the Bible "For all have sinned, and 
come short of the glory of God" 
(Romans 3:23). 


Thankfully, that is not the end of the 
story, because he also wrote " For the 
wages of sin is death; but the gift of God 
is eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
Lord."(Romans 6: 23) 


That Free offer of salvation is 
clarified in the following passage: 


John 3: 16 For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, 
but have everlasting life. 

17 For God sent not his Son into the 
world to condemn the world; but 
that the world through him might be 
saved. 


Prayers that count 
The prayers that God hears 


We don't make the rules any more 
than you do. We just want to help 
others know how to reach God, and 
know that God cares about them 
personally. 


The only prayers that make it to 
Heaven where God dwells are those 
prayers that are prayed directly to 


Him "through Jesus Christ" or "in 
the name of Jesus Christ’. 


God hears our prayers because we 
obey the method that God has 
established for us to be able to 
reach him. If we want Him to hear 
us, then we must use the methods 
that He has given us to 
communicate with Him. 


And he explains - in the New 
Testament - what that method is: 
talking to God (praying) in 
accordance with God’s will - and 
coming to Him in the name of Jesus 
Christ. Here are some examples of 
that from the New Testament: 


(Acts 3:6) Then Peter said, Silver and 
gold have I none; but such as I have give 
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of 
Nazareth rise up and walk. 


(Acts 16:18) And this did she many days. 
But Paul, being grieved, turned and said 
to the spirit, I command thee in the 
name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. 
And he came out the same hour. 


(Acts 9:27) But Barnabas took him, and 
brought him to the apostles, and 
declared unto them how he had seen the 
Lord in the way, and that he had spoken 
to him, and how he had preached boldly 
at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 


(2 Cor 3:4) And such trust have we 
through Christ to God-ward: (i.e. 
toward God) 


(Gal 4:7) Wherefore thou art no more a 
servant, but a son; and if a son, then an 
heir of God through Christ. 

(Eph 2:7) That in the ages to come he 
might show the exceeding [spiritual] 
riches of his grace in his kindness toward 


us through Christ Jesus. 


(Phil 4:7) And the peace of God, which 
passeth all understanding, shall keep 
your hearts and minds through Christ 


Jesus. 


(Acts 4:2) Being grieved that they taught 
the people, and preached through Jesus 
the resurrection from the dead. 


(Rom 1:8) First, I thank my God 
through Jesus Christ for you all, that 
your faith is spoken of throughout the 
whole world. 


(Rom 6:11) Likewise reckon ye also 
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, 


but alive unto God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. 


(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; 
but the gift of God is eternal life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. 


(Rom 15:17) I have therefore whereof I 


may glory through Jesus Christ in those 
things which pertain to God. 


(Rom 16:27) To God only wise, be glory 
through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. 


(1 Pet 4:11) ...if any man minister, Jet 
him do it as of the ability which God 
giveth: that God in all things may be 
glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom 
be praise and dominion for ever and 
ever. Amen. 


(Gal 3:14) That the blessing of Abraham 
might come on the Gentiles through 
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the 
promise of the [Holy] Spirit through 
faith. 


(Titus 3:6) Which he shed on us 
abundantly through Jesus Christ our 


Saviour; 


(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every 
good work to do his will, working in you 
that which is wellpleasing in his sight, 
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory 
for ever and ever. Amen. 


Anyone who has questions is encouraged to contact us by 
email, with the address that is posted on our website. 








Note for Foreign Language and 
International Readers & Users 


Foreign Language Versions of the 
Introduction and Postcript/Afterword 
will be included (hopefully) in future 
editions. 


IF a person wanted to become a Christian, what would they pray ? 


God, I am praying this to you so that you will help me. Please help 
me to want to know you better. Please help me to become a Christian 


God I admit that I am not perfect. I understand that you cannot allow 
anyone into Heaven who is not perfect and Holy. I understand that 
if I believe in Jesus Christ and in what He did, that God you will 

see my life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that this will 
allow me to have eternal life and know that I am going to Heaven. 


God, I admit that I have sin and things in my life that are not perfect. 
I know I have sinned in my life. Please forgive me of my sins. 

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth 
to save those who ask Him, and that He died to pay the penalty for 
all of my sins. 


I understand that Jesus physically died and physically arose from the 
dead, and that God can forgive me because of the death and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. I thank you for dying for me, and for 
paying the price for my sins. I accept to believe in you, and I thank 
you Lord God from all of my heart for your help and for sending 
your Son to die and raise from the Dead. 


I pray that you would help me to read your word the Bible. I 
renounce anything in my life, my thoughts and my actions that is 

not from you, and I do this in the name of Jesus Christ. Help me 

to not be spiritually deceived. Help me to grow and learn how to have 
a strong Christian walk for you, and to be a good example, with your 
help. Help me to have and develop a love of your word the Bible, and 
please bring to my life, people and situations that will help me to 
understand how to live my life as your servant. Help me to learn 

how to share the good news with those who may be willing to learn 
or to know. I ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ, and 

I thank you for what you have done for me, Amen. 





Prayers for help to God 
In MANY LANGUAGES 


For YOU, for US, for your Family 


Dear God, 
Thank you that this New Testament has been released so 
that we are able to learn more about you. 


Please help the people responsible for making this 
Electronic book available. Please help them to be able to 
work fast, and make more Electronic books available 
Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the 
strength and the time that they need in order to be able to 
keep working for You. 


Please help those that are part of the team that help them on 
an everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue 
and give each of them the spiritual understanding for the 
work that you want them to do. Please help each of them to 
not have fear and to remember that you are the God who 
answers prayer and who is in charge of everything. 


I pray that you would encourage them, 
and that you protect them, and the work & ministry that they 


are engaged in. I pray that you would protect them from 
the Spiritual Forces or other obstacles that could harm them 
or slow them down. 


Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think 
of the people who have made this edition available, so that I 
can pray for them and so they can continue to help more 
people 


I pray that you would give me a love of your 

Holy Word (the New Testament), and that you would give 
me spiritual wisdom and discernment to know you better 
and to understand the period of time that we are living in. 
Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that 
I am confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want 
to know you Better and to want to help other Christians in 
my area and around the world. 


I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and 
those who work on the website and those who help them 
your wisdom. 


I pray that you would help the individual members of their 
family (and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but 
to understand you and to want to accept and follow you in 
every way. and I ask you to do these things 

in the name of Jesus, 

Amen, 


KEKE EEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEEKEEKEEK 
KEKEEEKEKEEEKEKEEKEKEKEEKEKEEK 





5 minutos a ayudar excepto otros - diferencie eterno 


Dios querido, 


gracias que se ha lanzado este nuevo testamento 

de modo que poder aprender mas sobre usted. 

Ayude por favor a la gente responsable de hacer este Ebook disponible. 
Ayudele por favor a poder trabajar rapidamente, y haga que 

mas Ebooks disponible por favor le ayuda a tener todos los recursos, 
los fondos, la fuerza y el tiempo que necesitan 

para poder guardar el trabajar para usted. 


Ayude por favor a los que sean parte del equipo que 

les ayuda sobre una base diaria. Por favor déles la fuerza para continuar 
y para dar a cada uno de ellos la comprensién espiritual para el trabajo 
que usted quisiera que hicieran. Ayude por favor a cada uno de 

ellos a no tener miedo y a no recordar que usted es el dios que contesta 
a rezo y que esta a cargo de todo. 


Ruego que usted los animara, y que usted los proteja, 
y el trabajo y el ministerio que estan contratados adentro. 

Ruego que usted los protegiera contra las fuerzas espirituales 
que podrian dafarlas o retardarlas abajo. Ayudeme por favor cuando 
utilizo este nuevo testamento también para pensar en ellas de modo 
que pueda rogar para ellas y asi que pueden continuar ayudando a mas 
gente Ruego que usted me diera un amor de su palabra santa, 

y que usted me daria la sabiduria y el discernimiento espirituales 

para conocerle mejor y para entender los tiempos que estamos 

adentro y cOmo ocuparse de las dificultades que me enfrentan con cada dia. 
Sefor God, me ayuda a desear conocerle mejor y desear ayudar 

a otros cristianos en mi area y alrededor del mundo. Ruego que usted 
diera el Web site y los de Ebook el equipo y los que trabajan en 

que les ayudan su sabiduria. Ruego que usted ayudara a los miembros 
individuales de su familia (y de mi familia) espiritual a no ser enganado, 
pero entenderle y desear aceptarle y seguir de cada manera. 

y pido que usted haga estas cosas en el nombre de Jesus, amen, ¢ 


(por qué lo hacemos tradujeron esto a muchas idiomas? 

Porque necesitamos a tanto rezo como sea posible, 

y atanta gente que ruega para nosotros y el este ministerio 

tan a menudo como sea posible. Gracias por su ayuda. 

El rezo es una de las mejores maneras que usted puede ayudarnos mas). 


Hungarian 


Hungary, Hungarian, Hungary Hungarian Maygar Prayer Jezus Krisztus 
Imadsag hoz Isten Hogyan viselkedni Imadkozik hoz tud hall az en m 
viselkedni kerdez ad segit szamomra 


Hungarian - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God 
- explained in Hungarian Language 


Beszél6 -hoz Isten , a Alkot6 -b6l Vilagegyetem , a Lord : 
1. amit 6n akar ad sz4momra a batorsag -hoz imadkozik a 
dolog amit Vennem kell imadkozik 

2. amit 6n akar ad sz4momra a batorsdg -hoz hisz 6n és 
elfogad amit akrsz igy csinalni életemmel , helyett én 
felemel az én -m sajat akarat ( sz4ndék ) fenti 6né. 

3. amit 6n akar add nekem segit -hoz nem enged az én -m 
fél -bdl ismeretlen -hoz valik a kifogas , vagy a alap értem 
nem -hoz szolgal you. 


4. amit 6n akar add nekem segit -hoz lat és -hoz megtanul 
hogyan viselkedni volna a szellemi eré Sziikségem van ( 
Atmené6 -a sz6 a Biblia ) egy ) részére a esemény elére és b 
betii ) részére az én -m sajat személyes szellemi utazas. 


5. Amit 6n Isten akar add nekem segit -hoz akar -hoz szolgal 
On tébb 


6. Amit 6n akar emlékeztet én -hoz -val beszél 6n 
prayerwhen ) En csalédott vagy -ban nehézség , helyett 
kiprobalas -hoz hatarozat dolog én magam egyetlen atmend 
az én -m emberi eré. 


7. Amit 6n akar add nekem Bélcsesség és egy sziv téltott - 
val Bibliai Bélcsesség azért EN akar szolgal 6n tobb 
hatékonyan. 


8. Amit 6n akar adjon nekem egy -t vagy -hoz dolgozészoba 
-a sz , a Biblia ,( a Uj Végrendelet Evangélium -bél Budi ), 
-ra egy személyes alap 


9. amit 6n akar ad segitség sz4momra azért En képes -hoz 
észrevesz dolog -ban Biblia ( -a sz6 ) melyik EN tud 
személyesen elmond -hoz , és amit akarat segitsen nekem ért 
amit akrsz én -hoz csinal életemben. 


10. Amit 6n akar add nekem nagy itéléképesség , -hoz ért 
hogyan viselkedni megmagyaraz -hoz masikak ki Gn , és 
amit EN akar képesnek lenni megtenni megtanul hogyan 
viselkedni megtanul és tud hogyan viselkedni kiall mellett 
6n és én -a sz6 (a Biblia ) 

11. Amit 6n akar hoz emberek ( vagy websites ) életemben 
ki akar -hoz tud 6n és én , ki van erés -ban -uk pontos 
megértés -bdl 6n ( Isten ); és Amit 6n akar hoz emberek ( 
vagy websites ) életemben ki lesz képes -hoz batorit én -hoz 
pontosan megtanul hogyan viselkedni feloszt a Biblia a szé6 - 
bdl igazsag (2 Komocsin 215:). 


12. Amit 6n akar segitsen nekem -hoz megtanul -hoz volna 
nagy megértés kGriilbeltil melyik Biblia véltozat van legjobb 
, melyik van a leg--bb pontos , és melyik birtokol a leg--bb 
szellemi eré & eré , és melyik valtozat egyeztet -val a 
eredeti kézirat amit On ihletett a irdi hivatds -bél Uj 
Végrendelet -hoz ir. 


13. Amit 6n akar ad segit sz4momra -hoz hasznal id6m -ban 
egy JO ut , és nem -hoz elpusztit idém -ra Hamis vagy tires 
méodszer k6ézelebb keriilni -hoz Isten ( de amit van nem 


htiségesen Bibliai ), és hol azok médszer termel nem hosszt 
ideje vagy tartés szellemi gyiimdlcs. 


14. Amit 6n akar ad segitség szamomra -hoz ért mit tenni 
keres -ban egy templom vagy egy istentisztelet helye , mi 
fajta -bdl kérdés -hoz kérdez , és amit 6n akar segitsen 
nekem -hoz talal hiv6k vagy egy lelkész -val nagy szellemi 
bdlcsesség helyett konnyii vagy hamis valaszol. 


15. amit 6n akar okoz én -hoz emlékszik -hoz memorizél -a 
sz6 a Biblia ( mint Rémaiak 8), azért EN tud volna ez 
szivemben és volna az én -m térédik elékészitett , és lenni 
kész ad egy valaszol -hoz masikak -b6l remél amit Nekem 
van kGriilbeliil 6n. 


16. Amit 6n akar hoz segit sz4momra azért az én -m sajat 
teoldgia és tételek -hoz egyetérteni -a sz6 , a Biblia és amit 
on akar folytatédik segiteni neki én tud hogyan az én -m 
megértés -b6l doktrina lehet kézmiivesitett azért az én -m 
sajat élet , életméd és megértés folytatédik -hoz lenni zaré6 - 
hoz amit akrsz ez -hoz lenni értem. 


17. Amit 6n akar nyit az én -m szellemi bepillantas ( 
k6vetkeztetés ) tobb és tébb , és amit hol az én -m megértés 
vagy észrevétel -bdl 6n van nem pontos , amit 6n akar 
segitsen nekem -hoz megtanul ki Jézus Krisztus hiiségesen 
van. 


18. Amit 6n akar ad segit szimomra azért EN akar képesnek 
lenni megtenni szétvalaszt akarmi hamis ritusok melyik 
Nekem van fiiggés -ra , -bdl -a tiszta tanitas -ban Biblia , ha 
ak4rmi mib6l En alabbiak van nem -b6l Isten , vagy van 
ellenkez6 -hoz amit akrsz -hoz tanit minket koriilbeliil 
alabbiak 6n. 


19. Amit akarmi kényszerit -b6l rossz akar nem eltesz 
akarmi szellemi megértés melyik Nekem van , de eléggé 
amit EN akar megtart a tudds -bél hogyan viselkedni tud én 
és én nem -hoz lenni tévedésben lenni ezekben a napokban - 
bdl szellemi csalas. 


20. Amit 6n akar hoz szellemi eré és segit sz4momra azért 
EN akarat nem -hoz lenni része a Nagy Esés El vagy -bdl 
akarmi mozgalom melyik akar lenni lelkileg utanzott -hoz 
6n és én -hoz -a Szent Sz6 


21. Amit ha van akarmi amit Nekem van megtett életemben 
, vagy barmilyen médon amit Nekem van nem alperes -hoz 
on ahogy ettem kellet volna volna és ez minden 
megakadalyozas én -bdl egyik gyaloglas veled , vagy 
birtoklas megértés , amit 6n akar hoz azok dolog / valasz / 
esemény vissza bele az én -m torédik , azért EN akar 
lemond 6ket nevében Jézus Krisztus , és mind az 6sszes -uk 
hat és kévetkezmény , és amit 6n akar helyettesit akaérmi 
iiresség ,sadness vagy kétségbeesés életemben -val a Orém - 
b6l Lord , és amit EN akar lenni tébb fékuszdlva tanulas - 
hoz kovet 6n mellett olvas6 -a sz6 , a Biblia 


22. Amit 6n akar nyit az én -m szemek azért EN akar 
képesnek lenni megtenni vilagosan 1at és felismer ha van 
egy Nagy Csalas koriilbeltil Szellemi téma , hogyan 
viselkedni ért ez jelenség ( vagy ezek esemény ) -bdl egy 
Bibliai perspektiva , és amit 6n akar add nekem bdlcsesség - 
hoz tud és igy amit EN akarat megtanul hogyan viselkedni 
segit barataim és szeretett egyek ( rokon ) nem lenni része it. 


23. Amit 6n akar biztosit amit egyszer az én -m szemek van 
kinyitott és az én -m torédik ért a szellemi jelent6éség -bdl 
id6észerii esemény bevétel hely a vilagon , amit 6n akar 
elékészit szivem elfogadtatni magam -a igazsag , és amit 6n 
akar segitsen nekem ért hogyan viselkedni talal batorsag és 


er6 atmen6 -a Szent Sz6 , a Biblia. Nevében Jézus Krisztus , 
En kérdezek mindezekért igazol kivans4gom -hoz lenni -ban 
megillapodas -a akarat , és En kérdezés részére -a 
bilcsesség és kocsit bérelni szerelem -b6l Igazsag Amen 


Tobb alul -bdl Oldal 
Hogyan viselkedni volna Orokélet 


Vagyunk boldog ha ez oldalra dél ( -b6l imadsag kereslet - 
hoz Isten ) van képes -hoz tamogat 6n. Mi ért ez majus nem 
lenni a legjobb vagy a leg--bb hatdsos forditas. Mi ért amit 
vannak sok kiil6nb6z6 ways -b6l kifejezheté gondolkodas és 
sz6veg. Ha 6nnek van egy javaslat részére egy jobb forditas 
, vagy ha tetszene neked -hoz fog egy kicsi 6sszeg -b6l idéd 
-hoz kiild javaslatok hozzank , lesz lenni ételadag ezer -b6l 
mas emberek is , ki akarat akkor olvas a k6zmiivesitett 
fordités. Mi gyakran volna egy Uj Végrendelet elérheté -ban 
-a nyelv vagy -ban nyelvek amit van ritka vagy régi. Ha 6n 
latsz6 részére egy Uj Végrendelet -ban egy kiilénleges nyelv 
, legyen szives ir hozzank. Is , akarunk hogy biztosak 
legyiink és megprébal -hoz kommunikal amit néha , 
megtessziik felajanl konyv amit van nem Szabad és amit 
csinal ar pénz. De ha 6n nem tud ad néhanyuk elektronikus 
konyv , mi tud gyakran csinal egy cserél -bél elektronikus 
konyv részére segit -val forditas vagy forditas dolgozik. 
Csinalsz nem kell lenni profi munkas , csak kevés szabalyos 
személy akit érdekel ételadag. Onnek kellene volna egy 
szamité6gép vagy onnek kellene volna belépés -hoz egy 
szamitégép -on -a helyi k6nyvtar vagy kollégium vagy 
egyetem , 6ta azok altala4ban volna jobb kapcsolatok -hoz 
Internet. 


Tudod is altalaban alapit -a sajat személyes SZABAD 
elektronikus posta szamla mellett halad6 mail.yahoo.com 


Legyen szives fog egy pillanat -hoz talal a elektronikus 
posta cim elhelyezett alul vagy a vég ebbdl oldal. Mi remél 
lesz kiild elektronikus posta hozzank , ha ez -bdl segit vagy 
batoritas. Mi is batorit Gn -hoz kapcsolat minket 
vonatkozolag Elektronikus Konyv hogy tudunk felajan! amit 
van nélkiil ar , és szabad. 


Megtessziik volna sok kényv -ban kiilf6ldi nyelvek , de 
megtessziik nem mindig hely 6ket -hoz kap elektronikusan ( 
letdlt ) mert mi egyetlen csinal elérheté a konyv vagy a téma 
amit van a leg--bb kereslet. Mi batorit 6n -hoz folytatédik - 
hoz imadkozik -hoz Isten és -hoz folytatédik -hoz megtanul 
rla mellett olvasé a Uj Végrendelet. Mi szivesen lat -a 
kérdés és magyarazat mellett elektronikus posta. 


KEKEEEKEKEKKEEKEEEEEEKEEEKEEKE 
KEKEEEKEEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKEE 


Italian 


Italian- Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in Italian Language 


italian prayer jesus Cristo Preghiera come pregare al del dio il dio puo 
sentirsi preghiera come chiedere dio di dare allaiuto me 


Parlando al dio, il creatore dell'universo, il signore: 


1. che dareste me al coraggio pregare le cose di che ho 
bisogno per pregare 


2. che dareste me al coraggio crederli ed accettare che cosa 
desiderate fare con la mia vita, anziché me che exalting il 
miei propri volonta (intenzione) sopra il vostro. 


3. che mi dareste I'aiuto per non lasciare i miei timori dello 
sconosciuto transformarsi in nelle giustificazioni, o la base 
per me per non servirlo. 


4. che mi dareste l'aiuto per vedere ed imparare come avere 
la resistenza spiritosa io abbia bisogno (con la vostra parola 
bibbia) di a) per gli eventi avanti e b) per il mio proprio 
viaggio spiritoso personale. 


5. Che dio mi dareste I'aiuto per desiderare servirli di pit 

6. Che mi ricordereste comunicare con voi (prayer)when io 
sono frustrati o in difficolta, invece di provare a risolvere le 
cose io stesso soltanto con la mia resistenza umana. 


7. Che mi dareste la saggezza e un cuore si é riempito di 
saggezza biblica in modo che li servissi pit: efficacemente. 


8. Che mi dareste un desiderio studiare la vostra parola, la 
bibbia, (il nuovo gospel del Testamento di John), a titolo 
personale, 


9. che dareste ad assistenza me in modo che possa notare le 
cose nella bibbia (la vostra parola) a cui posso riferire 
personalmente ed a che lo aiutera a capire che cosa lo 
desiderate fare nella mia vita. 


10. Che mi dareste il discernment grande, per capire come 
spiegare ad altri che siate e che potrei imparare come 
imparare e sapere levarsi in piedi in su per voi e la vostra 
parola (bibbia) 


11. Che portereste la gente (01 Web site) nella mia vita che 
desidera conoscerla e che é forte nella loro comprensione 
esatta di voi (dio); e quello portereste la gente (0 1 Web site) 
nella mia vita che potra consigliarmi imparare esattamente 
come dividere la bibbia la parola della verita (2 coda di todo 
2:15). 


12. Che lo aiutereste ad imparare avere comprensione 
grande circa quale versione della bibbia é la cosa migliore, 
che é la pit esatta e che ha la resistenza & I'alimentazione 
pit spiritose e che la versione accosente con i manoscritti 
originali che avete ispirato gli autori di nuovo Testamento 
scrivere. 


13. Che dareste I'aiuto me per usare 11 mio tempo in un buon 
senso e per non sprecare il mio tempo sui metodi falsi o 
vuoti di ottenere pit vicino al dio (ma a quello non sia 
allineare biblico) e dove quei metodi non producono frutta 
spiritosa di lunga durata o durevole. 


14. Che dareste I'assistenza me capire che cosa cercare in 
una chiesa o in un posto di culto, che generi di domande da 
chiedere e che lo aiutereste a trovare i believers o un pastor 
con saggezza spiritosa grande anziché le risposte facili o 
false. 


15. di che lo indurreste a ricordarsi per memorizzare la 
vostra parola la bibbia (quale Romans 8), di modo che posso 
averlo nel mio cuore e fare la mia prepararsi mente ed é 


aspetti per dare una risposta ad altre della speranza che ho 
circa vol. 


16. Che portereste l'aiuto me in modo che la mie proprie 
teologia e dottrine per accosentire con la vostra parola, la 
bibbia e che continuereste a aiutarli a sapere la mia 
comprensione della dottrina pu6 essere migliorata in modo 
che la miei propri vita, lifestyle e capire continui ad essere 
pit vicino a che cosa lo desiderate essere per me. 


17. Che aprireste la mia comprensione spiritosa 
(conclusioni) di pitt e pit’ e che dove la mia comprensione o 
percezione di voi non é esatta, che lo aiutereste ad imparare 
chi Jesus Christ allineare é. 


18. Che dareste I'aiuto me in modo che possa separare tutti i 
rituali falsi da cui ho dipeso, dai vostri insegnamenti liberi 
nella bibbia, se c'é ne di che cosa sono seguente non é del 
dio, o é contrari a che cosa desiderate per insegnarli - circa 
quanto segue. 


19. Che alcune forze della malvagita non toglierebbero la 
comprensione affatto spiritosa che abbia, ma piuttosto che 
mantennrei la conoscenza di come conoscerli e non essere 
ingannato dentro attualmente di inganno spiritoso. 


20. Che portereste la resistenza spiritosa ed aiutereste a me 
in modo che non faccia parte del ritirarsi grande o di alcun 
movimento che sarebbe spiritual falsificato a voi ed alla 
vostra parola santa. 


21. Quello se ci é qualche cosa che faccia nella mia vita, o 
qualsiasi senso che non ho risposto a voi come dovrei avere 
e quello sta impedendomi di camminare con voi, 0 avere 
capire, che portereste quei things/responses/events 
nuovamente dentro la mia mente, di modo che rinuncerei 


loro in nome di Jesus Christ e tutte i loro effetti e 
conseguenze e che sostituireste tutta la emptiness, tristezza o 
disperazione nella mia vita con la gioia del signore e che di 
pit sarei messo a fuoco sull'imparare seguirli leggendo la 
vostra parola, bibbia. 


22. Che aprireste i miei occhi in modo che possa vedere e 
riconoscere chiaramente se ci é un inganno grande circa i 
soggetti spiritosi, come capire questo fenomeno (0 questi 
eventi) da una prospettiva biblica e che mi dareste la 
saggezza per sapere ed in modo che impari come aiutare i 
miei amici ed amavo ones (parenti) per non fare parte di 
esso. 


23. Che vi accertereste che i miei occhi siano aperti una 
volta e la mia mente capisce I'tmportanza spiritosa degli 
eventi correnti che avvengono nel mondo, che abbiate 
preparato il mio cuore per accettare la vostra verita e che lo 
aiutereste a capire come trovare il coraggio e la resistenza 
con la vostra parola santa, la bibbia. In nome di Jesus Christ, 
chiedo queste cose che confermano il mio desiderio essere 
nell'accordo la vostra volonta e sto chiedendo la vostra 
saggezza ed avere un amore della verita, Amen. 


Pit: in calce alla pagina 
come avere vita Eterna 


Siamo felici se questa lista (delle richieste di preghiera al 
dio) puo aiutarli. Capiamo che questa non puo essere la 
traduzione migliore o pit efficace. Capiamo che ci sono 
molti sensi differenti di esprimere i pensieri e le parole. Se 
avete un suggerimento per una traduzione migliore, 0 se 


voleste occorrere una piccola quantita di vostro tempo di 
trasmettere i suggerimenti noi, aiuterete i migliaia della 
gente inoltre, che allora leggera la traduzione migliorata. 
Abbiamo spesso un nuovo Testamento disponibile in vostra 
lingua o nelle lingue che sono rare o vecchie. 


Se state cercando un nuovo Testamento in una lingua 
specifica, scriva prego noi. Inoltre, desideriamo essere sicuri 
e proviamo a comunicare a volte quello, offriamo 1 libri che 
non sono liberi e che costano i soldi. Ma se non potete 
permettersi alcuni di quei libri elettronici, possiamo fare 
spesso uno scambio di libri elettronici per aiuto con la 
traduzione o il lavoro di traduzione. 


Non dovete essere un operaio professionista, solo una 
persona normale che é interessata nell'assistenza. Dovreste 
avere un calcolatore o dovreste avere accesso ad un 
calcolatore alla vostra biblioteca 0 universita o universita 
locale, poiché quelli hanno solitamente collegamenti 
migliori al Internet. Potete anche stabilire solitamente il 
vostro proprio cliente LIBERO personale della posta 
elettronica andando al ### di mail.yahoo.com prego 
occorrete un momento per trovare l'indirizzo della posta 
elettronica situato alla parte inferiore o all'estremita di 
questa pagina. Speriamo che trasmettiate la posta elettronica 
noi, se questa é di aiuto o di incoraggiamento. Inoltre vi 
consigliamo metterseli in contatto con riguardo ai libri 
elettronici che offriamo quello siamo senza costo e 


che libero abbiamo molti libri nelle lingue straniere, ma 
non le disponiamo sempre per ricevere elettronicamente 
(trasferimento dal sistema centrale verso i satelliti) perché 
rendiamo soltanto disponibile i libri 0 i soggetti che sono 
chiesti. Vi consigliamo continuare a pregare al dio eda 
continuare ad imparare circa lui leggendo il nuovo 


Testamento. Accogliamo favorevolmente le vostre domande 
ed osservazioni da posta elettronica. 


Preghiera al dio Caro Dio, Grazie che questo gospel 0 
questo nuovo Testamento é stato liberato in modo che 
possiamo impararvi pit circa. Aiuti prego la gente 
responsabile del rendere questo libro elettronico disponibile. 
Conoscete che chi sono e potete aiutarle. 


Aiutile prego a potere funzionare velocemente e renda i libri 
pit elettronici disponibili Aiutili prego ad avere tutte le 
risorse, i soldi, la resistenza ed il tempo di che hanno 
bisogno per potere continuare a funzionare per voi. 

Aiuti prego quelli che fanno parte della squadra che le aiuta 
su una base giornaliere. Prego dia loro la resistenza per 
continuare e dare ciascuno di loro la comprensione spiritosa 
per il lavoro che li desiderate fare. Aiuti loro prego ciascuno 
a non avere timore ed a non ricordarsi di che siete il dio che 
risponde alla preghiera e che é incaricato di tutto. Prego che 
consigliereste loro e che li proteggete ed il lavoro & il 
ministero che sono agganciati dentro. 


Prego che li proteggereste dalle forze spiritose o da altri 
ostacoli che potrebbero nuoc o ritardarli git. Aiutilo prego 
quando uso questo nuovo Testamento anche per pensare alla 
gente che ha reso questa edizione disponibile, di modo che 
posso pregare per loro ed in modo da puo continuare a 
aiutare pit gente. 


Prego che mi dareste un amore della vostra parola santa (il 
nuovo Testamento) e che mi dareste la saggezza ed il 
discernment spiritosi per conoscerli meglio e per capire il 


periodo di tempo ot stiamo vivendo. Aiutilo prego a sapere 
risolvere le difficolta che sono confrontato con ogni giorno. 
Il signore God, lo aiuta a desiderare conoscerli pit meglio e 
desiderare aiutare altri cristiani nella mia zona ed intorno al 
mondo. 


Prego che dareste la squadra elettronica e coloro del libro 
che le aiuta la vostra saggezza. 

Prego che aiutereste 1 diversi membri della loro famiglia (e 
della mia famiglia) spiritual a non essere ingannati, ma 
capirli e desiderare accettarli e seguire in ogni senso. Inoltre 
diaci la comodita ed il consiglio in questi periodi ed io vi 
chiedono di fare queste cose in nome di Jesus, amen, 


KEKKEEKEEKKEEEKEEKEEEKEEEEEEREKEK 


PORTUGUESE PORTUGUESE 


Portuguese Prayer Cristo Pedido a Deus Como orar a Deus 
podem ouvir my pedido perguntar Deus dar ajuda a me 
Portuguese - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God 
- explained in Portugues (Portugues) Language 


Falando ao deus, o criador do universo, senhor: 


1. que vocé daria a mim 4 coragem pray as coisas que eu 
necessito pray 


2. que vocé daria a mim a coragem o acreditar e aceitar o 
que vocé quer fazer com minha vida, em vez de mim que 
exalting meus proprios vontade (inteng4o) acima de seu. 


3. que vocé me daria a ajuda para nao deixar meus medos do 
desconhecido se transformar as desculpas, ou a base para 
mim para nao lhe servir. 


4. que vocé me daria a ajuda para ver e aprender como ter a 
forcga espiritual mim necessite (com sua palavra o bible) a) 
para os eventos adiante e b) para minha propria viagem 
espiritual pessoal. 


5. Que vocé deus me daria a ajuda para querer lhe servir 
mais 

6. Que vocé me lembraria falar com vocé (prayer)when me 
sao frustrados ou na dificuldade, em vez de tentar resolver 
coisas eu Mesmo somente com minha for¢a humana. 


7. Que vocé me daria a sabedoria e um corac¢4o encheu-se 
com a sabedoria biblical de modo que eu lhe servisse mais 
eficazmente. 


8. Que vocé me daria um desejo estudar sua palavra, o bible, 
(o gospel do testament novo de John), em uma base pessoal, 


9. que vocé daria a auxilio a mim de modo que eu pudesse 
observar coisas no bible (sua palavra) a que eu posso 
pessoalmente se relacionar, e a que me ajudara compreender 
0 que vocé me quer fazer em minha vida. 


10. Que vocé me daria o discernment grande, para 
compreender como explicar a outro que vocé é, e que eu 


poderia aprender como aprender e saber estar acima para 
vocé e sua palavra (o bible) 


11. Que vocé traria os povos (ou os Web site) em minha 
vida que querem o conhecer, e que sao fortes em sua 
compreensao exata de vocé (deus); e isso vocé traria povos 
(ou Web site) em minha vida que podera me incentivar 
aprender exatamente como dividir o bible a palavra da 
verdade (2 timothy 2:15). 


12. Que vocé me ajudaria aprender ter a compreensdo 
grande sobre que versdo do bible é a mais melhor, que sio a 
mais exata, e que tém a forga & o poder os mais espirituais, 
e que a verséo concorda com os manuscritos originais que 
vocé inspirou os autores do testament novo escrever. 


13. Que vocé me daria a ajuda para usar meu tempo em uma 
maneira boa, e para nao desperdigar minha hora em métodos 
falsos ou vazios de comegar mais perto do deus (mas 
daquele nao seja verdadeiramente biblical), e onde aqueles 
métodos nao produzem nenhuma fruta espiritual a longo 
prazo ou duravel. 


14. Que vocé me daria 0 auxilio compreender 0 que 
procurar em uma igreja ou em um lugar da adoracdo, que 
tipos das perguntas a pedir, e que vocé me ajudaria 
encontrar believers ou um pastor com sabedoria espiritual 
grande em vez das respostas faceis ou falsas. 15. que vocé 
faria com que eu recordasse memorizar sua palavra o bible 
(tal como Romans 8), de modo que eu pudesse o ter em meu 
coracdo e ter minha mente preparada, e estivessem pronto 
para dar uma resposta a outra da esperang¢a que eu tenho 
sobre vocé. 


16. Que vocé me traria a ajuda de modo que meus préprios 
theology e doutrinas para concordar com sua palavra, o 


bible e que vocé continuaria a me ajudar saber minha 
compreensao da doutrina pode ser melhorada de modo que 
meus proprios vida, lifestyle e compreensdo continuem a ser 
mais perto de o que vocé a quer ser para mim. 


17. Que vocé abriria minha introspec¢ao espiritual 
(conclus6es) mais e mais, e que onde minha compreens4o 
ou percepcao de vocé nao so exata, que vocé me ajudaria 
aprender quem Jesus Christ é verdadeiramente. 


18. Que vocé me daria a ajuda de modo que eu possa 
separar todos os rituals falsos de que eu depender, de seus 
ensinos desobstruidos no bible, se alguma de 0 que eu sou 
seguinte nao séo do deus, nem sAo contrarias a 0 que vocé 
quer nos ensinar - sobre o seguir. 


19. Que nenhumas forgas do evil néo removeriam a 
compreensfo espiritual que eu tenho, mas rather que eu 
reteria o conhecimento de como o conhecer e n4o ser iludido 
nestes dias do deception espiritual. 

20. Que vocé traria a forga espiritual e me ajudaria de modo 
que eu n4o seja parte da queda grande afastado ou de 
nenhum movimento que fosse espiritual forjado a vocé e a 
sua palavra holy. 


21. Isso se houver qualquer coisa que eu fiz em minha vida, 
ou alguma maneira que eu nao lhe respondi como eu devo 
ter e aquela esta impedindo que eu ande com vocé, ou ter a 
compreensao, que vocé traria aqueles 
things/responses/events para tras em minha mente, de modo 
que eu os renunciasse no nome de Jesus Christ, e em todas 
seus efeitos e conseqiiéncias, e que vocé substituiria todo o 
emptiness, sadness ou desespero em minha vida com a 
alegria do senhor, e que eu estaria focalizado mais na 
aprendizagem o seguir lendo sua palavra, o bible. 


22. Que vocé abriria meus olhos de modo que eu possa ver e 
reconhecer claramente se houver um deception grande sobre 
t6picos espirituais, como compreender este fendmeno (ou 
estes eventos) de um perspective biblical, e que vocé me 
daria a sabedoria para saber e de modo que eu aprenderei 
como ajudar a meus amigos e amei (parentes) n4o ser parte 
dela. 


23. Que vocé se asseguraria de que meus olhos estejam 
abertos uma vez e minha mente compreende o significado 
espiritual dos eventos atuais que ocorrem no mundo, que 
vocé prepararia meu cora¢4o para aceitar sua verdade, e que 
vocé me ajudaria compreender como encontrar a coragem e 
a forcga com sua palavra holy, o bible. No nome de Jesus 
Christ, eu pego estas coisas que confirmam meu desejo ser 
no acordo sua vontade, e eu estou pedindo sua sabedoria e 
para ter um amor da verdade, Amen. 


Mais no fundo da pagina 
como ter a vida eternal 


Nos estamos contentes se esta lista (de pedidos do prayer ao 
deus) puder Ihe ajudar. Nés compreendemos que esta néo 
pode ser a mais melhor ou traducao a mais eficaz. Nés 
compreendemos que ha muitas maneiras diferentes de 
expressar pensamentos e palavras. Se vocé tiver uma 
sugestaéo para uma tradu¢d4o melhor, ou se vocé gostar de 
fazer exame de um pouco de seu tempo nos emitir 
sugest6es, vocé estaré ajudando a milhares dos povos 
também, que lerao entao a traducao melhorada. Nés temos 
frequentemente um testament novo disponivel em sua lingua 
ou nas linguas que sao raras ou velhas. Se vocé estiver 
procurando um testament novo em uma lingua especifica, 
escreva-nos por favor. 


Também, nds queremos ser certos e tentamos comunicar as 
vezes isso, nds oferecemos os livros que nfo estio livres e 
que custam o dinheiro. Mas se vocé nao puder ter recursos 
para alguns daqueles livros eletrénicos, nds podemos 
frequentemente fazer uma troca de livros eletr6nicos para a 
ajuda com tradug4o ou trabalho da tradug4o. Vocé nao tem 
que ser um trabalhador profissional, only uma pessoa 
regular que esteja interessada na ajuda. 


Vocé deve ter um computador ou vocé deve ter 0 acesso a 
um computador em sua biblioteca ou faculdade ou 
universidade local, desde que aqueles tém geralmente 
conexoes melhores ao Internet. 


Vocé pode também geralmente estabelecer seu proprio 
cliente LIVRE pessoal do correio eletr6nico indo ao ### de 
mail.yahoo.com faz exame por favor de um momento para 
encontrar o endereco do correio eletrénico ficado situado no 
fundo ou na extremidade desta pagina. Nés esperamos que 
vocé nos emita o correio eletrénico, se este for da ajuda ou 
do incentivo. Nés incentivamo-lo também contatar-nos a 
respeito dos livros eletrénicos que nds oferecemos a isso 
somos sem custo, e 


que livre ndés temos muitos livros em linguas extrangeiras, 
mas nos nao as colocamos sempre para receber 
eletronicamente (download) porque nés fazemos somente 
disponivel os livros ou os t6picos que sao os mais pedidos. 
Nos incentivamo-lo continuar a pray ao deus e a continuar a 
aprender sobre ele lendo o testament novo. Nés damos boas- 
vindas a seus perguntas e comentarios pelo correio 
eletr6nico. 


KEKE EEEEKKEEKEEEEEEKEEKKEEKE 
KEKEKEEKEKEKEKEEEKEKEKEEKEKEK 


Estimado Dios , Gracias aquel esto Nuevo Testamento has 
estado disparador a fin de que nosotros estamos capaz a 
aprender mas acerca de usted. Por favor ayideme la gente 
responsable por haciendo esto Electrénica libro disponible. 
Por favor aytideme estén capaz de obra ayuna , y hacer mas 
Electronica libros mayor disponible Por favor ayideme 
estén haber todo el recursos , el dinero , el potencia y el 
tiempo aquel ellos necesidad para poder guardar laboral para 
ti. Por favor ayGdeme esos aquel esta parte de la equipo 
aquel ayuda ellas en un corriente base. 


Por favor dar ellas el potencia a continuar y dar cada de ellas 
el espiritual comprensi6n por lo obra aquel usted necesidad 
estén hacer. Por favor ayideme cada de estén no haber 
miedo y a acordarse de aquel usted esta el Dios quién 
respuestas oraci6n y quién es él encargado de todo. 

Oro aquel usted haria animar ellas , y aquel usted amparar 
ellas , y los trabajadores & ministerio aquel son ocupado en. 
Oro aquel usted haria amparar ellas desde el Espiritual 
Fuerzas 0 otro obstaculos aquel puedes dafio ellas o lento 
ellas down. 


Por favor ayideme cuando YO uso esto Nuevo Testamento 
a también creer de la personas quién haber hecho esto 
edicion disponible , a fin de que YO lata orar por ellas y asi 
ellos lata continuar a ayuda mas personas Oro aquel usted 
haria déme un amor de su Santo Palabra ( el Nuevo 
Testamento ), y aquel usted haria déme espiritual juicio y 
discernimientos saber usted mejor y a comprender el tiempo 
aquel nosotros estamos viviente en. 


Por favor ayideme saber cémo a tratar con el dificultades 
aquel Estoy confrontar con todos los dias. Sefior Dios , 
Aytidame querer saber usted Mejor y querer a ayuda otro 
Cristianos en mi area y alrededor del mundo. Oro aquel 
usted haria dar el Electrénica libro equipo y esos quién obra 
en la telas y esos quién ayuda ellas su juicio. 


Oro aquel usted haria ayuda el individuo miembros de su 
familia ( y mi familia ) a no estar espiritualmente engafiado , 
pero a comprender usted y querer a aceptar y seguir usted en 
todos los dias camino. y YO preguntar usted hacer éstos 
cosas en nombre de Jestis , Amén , 


KEKEKEEKEKEKKEEKEEEEEEKEEEKKEEEE 


Kjzre God , Takk skal du ha det denne Ny Testamentet 
er blitt befridd i den grad at vi er dugelig a h¢re flere om du. 
Behage hjelpe folket ansvarlig for gjgr denne Elektronisk 
bestille anvendelig. Behage hjelpe seg a bli kjgpedyktig 
arbeide rask , og lage flere Elektronisk béker anvendelig 
Behage hjelpe seg a ha alle ressursene , pengene , det styrke 
og klokken det de ngd for at vere i stand til oppbevare 
arbeider til deres. 


Behage hjelpe dem det er del av teamet det hjelpe seg opp 
pa en hverdags basis. Behage gir seg det styrke a fortsette og 
gir hver av seg det sprit forstaelse for det arbeide det du 
gnske seg a gjgre. 


Behage hjelpe hver av seg a ikke ha rank og a erindre det du 
er det God hvem svar bgnn og hvem er i ledelsen av alt. JEG 
be det du ville oppmuntre seg , og det du beskytte seg , og 
det arbeide & ministerium det de er forlovet inne. JEG be 
det du ville beskytte seg fra det Sprit Presser eller annet 
obstacles det kunne skade seg eller langsom seg ned. 


Behage hjelpe meg nar JEG bruk denne Ny Testamentet a 
likeledes tenke pa folket hvem ha fremstilt denne opplag 
anvendelig , i den grad at JEG kanne be for seg hvorfor de 
kanne fortsette a hjelpe flere folk JEG be det du ville gir 
meg en kjerlighet til din Hellig Ord ( det Ny Testamentet ), 
og det du ville gir meg sprit klokskap og discernment 4 vite 
du bedre og 4 oppfatte perioden det vi lever inne. 

Behage hjelpe meg 4 vite hvor a beskjeftige seg med 
problemene det JEG er stilt overfor hver dag. Lord God , 
Hjelpe meg a vil gjerne vite du Bedre og a vil gjerne hjelpe 
annet Kristen inne meg omrade og i nerheten verden. 

JEG be det du ville gir det Elektronisk bestille lag og dem 
hvem arbeide med det website og dem hvem hjelpe seg din 
klokskap. JEG be det du ville hjelpe individet medlemmer 
av deres slekt ( og meg slekt ) a ikke vere spiritually narret , 
bortsett fra a oppfatte du og a vil gjerne godkjenne og fdlge 
etter etter du inne enhver vei. og JEG anmode du a gjgre 
disse saker inne navnet av Jesus , Samarbeidsvillig , 


KEKE EEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEKEEKEEKEEKEEK 


SWEDISH — SUEDE - SUEDOIS 


Swedish - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in Swedish Language 


Swedish Prayer Bon till Gud Jesus Hur till Be Hur kanna 
hora min Hur till fraga Gud till ger hjalp finna ande Ledning 
Talande till Gud , skaparen om Universum , den Var Herre 
och Frilsare : 


1. sa pass du skulle ger till jag tapperheten till be sakerna sa 
pass Jag néd till be 


2. sa pass du skulle ger till jag tapperheten till tro pa du och 
accept vad du vilja till g6r med min liv , i stallet for jag 
upphoja min aga vilja ( avsikt ) 6ver din. 

3. sa pass du skulle ge mig hjalp till inte lata min radsla om 
okand till bli den ursikta , eller basisten for jag inte till tjana 
you. 


4. sa pass du skulle ge mig hjalp till se och till lara sig hur 
till har den ande styrka Jag néd (igenom din uttrycka bibeln 
) en ) f6r handelsen fore och b ) for min aga personlig ande 
resa. 


5. Sa pass du Gud skulle ge mig hjalp till vilja till tjina Du 
mer 


6. Sa pass du skulle paminna jag till samtal med du 
prayerwhen ) JAG er frustrerat eller i svarigheten , i stillet 
for forsékande till besluta sakerna mig sjalv bara igenom 
min mansklig styrka. 


7. Sa pass du skulle ge mig Visdom och en hjartan fyllt med 
Biblisk Visdom sa fakta at JAG skulle tjana du mer 
effektivt. 8. Sa pass du skulle ge mig en 6nska till studera 
din uttrycka , bibeln , (den Ny Testamente Evangelium av 
John ), pa en personlig basis 9. sa pass du skulle ger hjalp 


till jag sa fakta at JAG er kopa duktig mirka sakerna inne 
om Bibel ( din uttrycka ) vilken JAG kanna personlig beratta 
till , och den dar vill hjalpa mig foérsta vad du vilja jag till 
gor i min liv. 


10. Sa pass du skulle ge mig stor discernment , till forsta hur 
till forklara till sjalvaste vem du er , och sa pass JAG skulle 
kunde lara sig hur till lara sig och veta hur till lopa upp for 
du och mig din uttrycka ( bibeln ) 


11. Sa pass du skulle komma med folk ( eller websites ) i 
min liv vem vilja till veta du och mig , vem de/vi/du/ni ar 
stark i deras exakt forstandet av du ( Gud ); och Sa pass du 
skulle komma med folk ( eller websites ) 1 min liv vem vilja 
kunde uppmuntra jag till ackurat lara sig hur till fordela 
bibeln orden av sanning Timothy 215:). 


12. Sa pass du skulle hjalpa mig till lara sig till har stor 
forstandet om vilken Bibel version dr bast , vilken ar mest 
exakt , och vilken har mest ande styrka & formaga , och 
vilken version samtycke med det original manuskripten sa 
pass du inspirerat forfattarna om Ny Testamente till skriva. 


13. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag till anvanda min tid i 
en god vag , och inte till slésa min tid pa Falsk eller tom 
metoderna till komma nérmare till Gud ( utom sa pass 
blandar inte sant Biblisk ), och var den har metoderna 
produkter ingen for lange siden tid eller varande ande frukt. 


14. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag till forsta vad till blick 
for i en kyrka eller en stille av dyrkan , vad slagen av 
sp6rsmalen till fraga , och sa pass du skulle hjalpa mig till 
finna tro pa eller en pastor med stor ande visdom i stillet for 
latt eller falsk svar. 


15. sa pass du skulle orsak jag till minas till minnesmarke 
din uttrycka bibeln ( sadan som Romersk 8), sa fakta at JAG 
kanna har den i min hjartan och har min sinne beredd , och 
vara rede till 4 ger en svar till sjalvaste om hoppa pa att Jag 
har omkring du. 


16. Sa pass du skulle komma med hjalp till jag sa fakta at 
min aga theology och doktrin till samtycke med din uttrycka 
, bibeln och sa pass du skulle fortsdtta till hjalpa mig veta 
hur min férstandet av doktrin kanna bli forbiattrat sa fakta at 
min aga liv , livsform och forstandet fortsatt till vara ndjer 
till vad slut du vilja den till vara for jag. 


17. Sa pass du skulle 6ppen min ande inblicken ( 
sluttningarna ) mer och mer , och sa pass var min férstandet 
eller uppfattningen av du r inte exakt , sa pass du skulle 
hjalpa mig till lara sig vem Jesus Christ sant ar. 


18. Sa pass du skulle ger hjalp till jag sa fakta at JAG skulle 
kunde skild fran nagon falsk ritual vilken Jag har bero pa , 
fran din klar undervisning inne om Bibel , eventuell om vad 
JAG foljer ar inte av Gud, eller ar i strid mot vad du vilja 
till undervisa oss omkring féljande du. 


19. Sa pass nagon pressar av onda skulle inte ta bort nagon 
ande férstandet vilken Jag har , utom hellre sa pass JAG 
skulle halla kvar kunskap om hur till veta du och mig inte 
till bli lurat i den har dagen av ande bedrigeri. 


20. Sa pass du skulle komma med ande styrka och hjalp till 
jag sa fakta at Jag vill inte till bli del om den Stor Stjarnfall 
Bort eller av nagon rérelse vilken skulle bli spiritually 
forfalskad till du och mig till din Helig Uttrycka 


21. Sa pass om dar er nagot sa pass Jag har gjort det min liv 
, eller nagon vag sa pass Jag har inte reagerat till du sa JAG 


skulle har och den dar er f6rhindrande jag fran endera 
vandrande med du, eller har forstandet , sa pass du skulle 
komma med den har sakerna / svaren / handelsen rygg in i 
min sinne , sa fakta at JAG skulle avsiga sig dem inne om 
Namn av Jesus Christ , och all av deras verkningen och 
konsekvenserna , och sa pass du skulle sitta tillbaka nagon 
tomhet ,sadness eller f6rtvivlan 1 min liv med det Gladje om 
Var Herre och Frilsare , och sa pass JAG skulle bli mer 
focusen pa inlarningen till f6lja du vid lasande din uttrycka , 
den Bibel 


22. Sa pass du skulle 6ppen min 6ga sa fakta at JAG skulle 
kunde klar se och recognize om dar er en Stor Bedrageri 
omkring Ande amnena , hur till f6rsta den har phenomenon 
( eller de har handelsen ) fran en Biblisk perspektiv , och sa 
pass du skulle ge mig visdom till veta och sa sa pass Jag vill 
lara sig hur till hjaélp min vénnerna och 4lskat en ( slaktingen 
) inte bli del om it. 


23. Sa pass du skulle tillf6rsakra sa pass en gang min 6ga 
de/vi/du/ni ar 6ppnat och min sinne forstar den ande mening 
av strém hindelsen tagande stiille pa jorden , sa pass du 
skulle f6rbereda min hjartan till accept din sanning , och sa 
pass du skulle hjalpa mig forsta hur till finna mod och styrka 
igenom din Helig Uttrycka , bibeln. Inne om namn av Jesus 
Christ , JAG fraga om de har sakerna bekraftande min Gnska 
till vara i folje avtalen din vilja , och JAG fragar till deras 
visdom och till har en karlek om den Sanning 
Samarbetsvillig 


Mer pa botten av Sida 
Hur till har Oandlig Liv 


Vi er glad om den har lista 6ver ( b6n anmoder till Gud ) ar 
duglig till hjalpa du. Vi forsta den har Maj inte bli den bist 
eller mest effektiv Gversattning. Vi forsta det dar de/vi/du/ni 
ar manga olik vag av yttranden tanken och orden. Om du har 
en forslagen for en biattre Gversattning , eller om du skulle 
lik till ta en liten belopp av din tid till sainda forslag till oss , 
du vill bli hjaélpande tusenden av annan folk ocksa , vem 
vilja da lisa den forbittrat Gversattning. Vi ofta har en Ny 
Testamente tillginglig i din sprak eller i spraken sa pass 
de/vi/du/ni ar sallsynt eller gammal. Om du er sett for en Ny 
Testamente i en bestamd sprak , behaga skriva till oss. 
Ocksa , vi beh6v till vara siker och férs6k till meddela sa 
pass ibland , vi g6r erbjudande bokna sa pass blandar inte 
Fri och sa pass gér kostnad pengar. Utom om du kan icke 
har rad med det nagot om den hir elektronisk bokna , vi 
kanna ofta gér en byta av elektronisk bokna for hjalp med 
Oversattning eller G6versattning verk. 


Du hade inte till vara en professionell arbetaren , enda et par 
regelbunden person vem er han intresserad 1 hjalpande. Du 
borde har en computern eller du borde ha ingang till en 
computern pa din lokal bibliotek eller college eller 
universitet , sedan dess den har vanligtvis har battre 
férbindelserna till Internet. Du kanna ocksa vanligtvis 
grunda din aga personlig FRI elektronisk sainda med posten 
redovisa vid gar till mail.-yahoo.com 


### Behaga ta en stund till finna den elektronisk sinda med 
posten adress lokaliserat nederst eller sluten av den har sida. 
Vi hoppas du vill sanda elektronisk sinda med posten till 
oss , om den har er av hjalp eller uppmuntran. Vi ocksa 
uppmuntra du till komma i kontakt med oss angaande 
Elektronisk Bokna sa pass vi erbjudande sa pass de/vi/du/ni 
ar utan kostnad , och fri. 


Vi gor har manga bokna i utlindsk spraken , utom vi inte 
alltid stélle dem till ta emot elektronisk ( data Gverfo6r ) 
emedan vi bara gora tillgénglig bokna eller iémnena sa pass 
de/vi/du/ni ar mest begiret. Vi uppmuntra du till fortsatta till 
be till Gud och till fortsatta till lara sig omkring Honom vid 
lasande den Ny Testamente. Vi valkomnande din 
sporsmalen och kommentarerna vid elektronisk sanda med 
posten. 


KEKE KEEKEEKEKEKEKEEEEEEKEEEEKEEKE 


Anwylyd Celi , Ddiolch 'ch a hon 'n Grai 
Destament gollyngwyd fel a allwn at ddysg hychwaneg 
amdanat. Blesio chyfnertha 'r boblogi 'n atebol achos yn 
gwneud hon Electronic Ilyfr ar gael. 


Blesio chyfnertha 'u at all gweithia ymprydia , a gwna 
hychwaneg Electronic llyfrau ar gael Blesio chyfnertha 'u at 
ca pawb 'r adnoddau , 'r arian , 'r chryfder a 'r amsera a hwy 
angen er all cadw yn gweithio atat. Blesio chyfnertha hynny 
sy barthu chan 'r heigia a chyfnertha 'u acha an everyday 
sail. 


Blesio anrhega 'u 'r chryfder at arhosa a anrhega pob un 
chanddyn 'r 'n ysbrydol yn deall achos 'r gweithia a 'ch 
angen 'u at gwna. 


Blesio chyfnertha pob un chanddyn at mo ca arswyda a at 
atgofia a ach 'r Celi a atebiadau arawd a sy 1 mewn 
chyhudda chan bopeth. Archa a anogech 'u , aa achlesi'u,a 
'r gweithia & gweinidogaeth a Jn cyflogedig i mewn. Archa 


a achlesech 'u chan 'r'n Ysbrydol Grymoedd ai arall 
rhwystrau a could amhara 'u ai arafa 'u i lawr. 

Blesio chyfnertha 'm pryd Arfera hon 'n Grai Destament at 
hefyd dybied chan 'r boblogi a wedi gwneud hon argraffiad 
ar gael , fel a Alla gweddio am 'u a fel allan arhosa at 
chyfnertha hychwaneg boblogi Archa a anrhegech 'm 
anwylaeth chan 'ch 'n gysegr-lan Eiria ('r'n Grai Destament 
), a a anrhegech 'm 'n ysbrydol callineb a ddirnadaeth at 
adnabod gwellhawch a at ddeall 'r atalnod chan amsera a Jm 
yn bucheddu 1 mewn. Blesio chyfnertha 'm at adnabod fel at 
ymdrin 'r afrwyddinebau a Dwi wynebedig ag ddiwedydd. 
Arglwydd Celi , Chyfnertha 'm at angen at adnabod 
gwellhawch a at angen at chyfnertha arall Cristnogion i 
mewn 'm arwynebedd a am 'r byd. Archa a anrhegech 'r 
Electronic llyfr heigia a hynny a gweithia acha 'r website a 
hynny a chyfnertha 'u 'ch callineb. Archa a chyfnerthech 'r 
hunigol aelodau chan 'n hwy deulu (a'm deulu ) at mo bod 
‘n ysbrydol dwylledig , namyn at ddeall 'ch a at angen at 
chymer a canlyn 'ch i mewn 'n bob ffordd. a Archa 'ch at 
gwna hyn bethau i mewn 'r enwa chan Iesu , Amen , 


KEKEEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEK 


Iceland — Icelandic 


Iceland 
Icelandic Icelandic - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) 
to God - explained in Icelandic Language 


Prayer Isceland Icelandic Jesus Kristur Baen til Guo 
Hvernig til Bioja Hvernig geta spyrja gefa hjalpa andlegur 
Leiosogn 


Tal til Gud the Skapari af the Alheimur the Herra : 


1. bessi pu vildi gefa til mig the hugrekki til bidja the hlutur 
pessi EG porf til bidja 


2. pessi pu vildi gefa til mig the hugrekki til traa pu og 
piggja hvada pt vilja til komast af med minn lif , { stadinn af 
mig upphefja minn eiga vilja ( Asetningur ) yfir pinn. 


3. pessi pt vildi gefa mig hjalpa til ekki lata minn 6gurlegur 
af the 6pekktur til verda the afsdkun , eda the undirstada 
fyrir mig ekki til bera fram you. 4. pessi pu vildi gefa mig 
hjalpa til sja og til laeera hvernig til hafa the andlegur styrkur 
EG pérf ( ¢ gegnum pinn ord the Biblia a ) fyrir the atburdur 
4 undan ) og b ) fyrir minn eiga persénulegur andlegur ferd. 


5. Pessi pi Guo vildi gefa mig hjalpa til vilja til bera fram 
bu fleiri 6. Pessi pu vildi minna 4 mig til tala med pu 
prayerwhen ) EG er svekktur eda i vandi , i stadinn af 
erfidur til 4setningur hlutur ég sjalfur eini i gegnum minn 
mannlegur styrkur. 


7. Bessi pti vildi gefa mig Viska og a hyarta fiskflak med 
Bibliulegur Viska svo pessi EG vildi bera fram pu fleiri 4 
ahrifarikan hatt. 


8. Pessi pti vildi gefa mig a longun til nema pinn oro the 
Biblia the Nyja testamentid Gudspjall af Kldsett ), 4a 
personulegur undirstada 


9. pessi pti vildi gefa adstod til mig svo bessi EG er feer til 
taka eftir hlutur i the Biblia ( pinn ord ) hver EG geta 
personulega segja fra til , og pessi vilja hj4lpa mig skilja 
hvada pt vilja mig til gera ut af vid minn lif. 


10. Pessi pt vildi gefa mig mikill skarpskyggni , til skilja 
hvernig til titskyra til annar hver pti ert , og bessi EG vildi 
vera feer til lera hvernig til lera og vita hvernig til standa 
med pt og pinn ord the Biblia ) 


11. bessi pt: vildi koma me6 félk ( eda websites ) i minn lif 
hver vilja til vita pti , og hver ert sterkur i peirra nékveemur 
skilningur af pt ( gud ); og Pessi pt vildi koma med félk ( 
eda websites ) { minn lif hver vilja vera fer til hvetja mig til 
nakveemur lera hvernig til deila the Biblia the ord guds 
sannleikur (2 Hredslugjarn 215:). 


12. Bessi pti vildi hjalpa mig til lera til hafa mikill 
skilningur 6dur i hver Biblia ttgafa er bestur , hver er 
nakveemur , og hver hefur the andlegur styrkur & mattur , og 
hver utgafa sampykkja med the frumeintak handrit pessi pu 
blasa i brjost the ritstérf af the Nyja testamenti6 til skrifa. 


13. Pessi pu vildi gefa hjalpa til mig til nota minn timi i g6d 
kaup vegur , og ekki til s6a minn timi 4 Falskur eda tomur 
aOfero til fa loka til Gud ( en pessi ert ekki hreinskilnislega 
Bibliulegur ), og hvar pessir adferd avextir og greenmeti 
neitun langur ord eda varanlegur andlegur Av6xtur. 


14. Bessi pti vildi gefa adstod til mig til skilja hvada til leita 
a0 {a kirkja eda a stadur af dyrkun , hvada gddur af 
spurning til spyrja , og pessi pt vildi hjalpa mig til finna 
trimadur eda a prestur med mikill andlegur viska i stadinn 
af pe gilegur eda falskur svar. 


15. pessi pt vildi ors6k mig til muna til leggja 4 minnid pinn 
ord the Biblia ( svo sem eins og Latneskt letur 8), svo bessi 
EG geta hafa pad { minn hjarta og hafa minn hugur tilbdinn , 
og vera tilbtinn til gefa 64kvedinn greinir f ensku svar til 
annar af the von bessi EG hafa dur { pu. 


16. Pessi pti vildi koma med hjalpa til mig svo bessi minn 
eiga gudfredi og kenning til vera {i samrami vid pinn ord 
the Biblia og pessi pu vildi halda 4fram til hjalpa mig vita 
hvernig minn skilningur af kenning geta vera beta svo pessi 
minn eiga lif lifestyle og skilningur halda afram til vera loka 
til hvada pt vilja pad til vera fyrir mig. 


17. bessi pt vildi opinn minn andlegur innsyn ( endir ) fleiri 
og fleiri , og pessi hvar minn skilningur eda skynjun af pt er 
ekki nakveemur , bessi pti vildi hjalpa mig til leera hver Jestis 
Kristur hreinskilnislega er. 


18. Pessi pti vildi gefa hjdlpa til mig svo pessi EG vildi vera 
fer til adskilinn allir falskur helgisidir hver EG hafa 
osjalfstedi 4 , fra pinn bjartur kennsla ij the Biblia , ef allir af 
hvada EG er hopur studningsmanna er ekki af Gud , eda er 
gegn hvada pt vilja til kenna okkur 6dur i hopur 
studningsmanna pu. 


19. Pessi allir herafli af vondur vildi ekki taka burt allir 
andlegur skilningur hver EG hafa , en fremur pessi EG vildi 
halda the vitneskja af hvernig til vita pu og ekki til vera 
blekkja f pessir sem minnir 4 gomlu dagana) af andlegur 
blekking. 


20. Pessi pt vildi koma med andlegur styrkur og hjalpa til 
mig svo pessi EG vilja ekki til vera hluti af the Mikill Bylta 
Burt eda af allir hreyfing hver vildi vera andlegur félsun til 
pu og til pinn Heilagur Ord 


21. Pessi ef there er nokkud pessi EG hafa biinn minn lif , 
eda allir vegur pessi EG hafa ekki s4 sem svarar til pti eins 
og EG 6x! hafa og pessi er sem koma md i veg fyrir eda 
afstyra mig fra annar hvor gangandi med pt , eda having 
skilningur , bessi bt vildi koma med pessir hlutur / svar / 


atburdur bak inn i minn hugur , svo bessi EG vildi afneita pa 
{ the Nafn af Jestis Kristur , og ekki minna en peirra ahrif og 
afleiding , og pessi pti vildi skipta um allir tomleiki ,sadness 
eda Orventing i minn lif med the Gledi af the Herra , og 
pessi EG vildi vera fleiri brennidepill 4 lard6émur til fylgja 
pu vid lestur binn ord the Biblia 


22. Pessi pti vildi opinn minn augsyn svo pessi EG vildi vera 
fer til greinilega sja og pekkjanlegur ef there er a Mikill 
Blekking 6d6ur { Andlegur atridi , hvernig til skilja this q ( 
eda bessir atburdur ) fra a Bibliulegur yfirsyn , og pessi pt 
vildi gefa mig viska til vita og svo pessi EG vilja lera 
hvernig til hjalpa minn vinatta og Ast sjalfur ( ettingi ) ekki 
vera hluti af it. 

23. Pessi pu vildi tryggja bessi einu sinni minn augsyn ert 
opnari og minn hugur skilja the andlegur merking af 
straumur atburdur hrifandi stadur i the verdld , bessi bu vildi 
undirbiéa minn hyarta til biggja pinn sannleikur , og bessi pt 
vildi hjalpa mig skilja hvernig til finna hugrekki og styrkur j 
gegnum pinn Heilagur Ord the Biblia. [ the nafn af Jestis 
Kristur , EG spyrja fyrir pessir hlutur stadfesta minn léngun 
til vera { samkomulag pinn vilja , og EG er asking fyrir pinn 
viska og til hafa a ast af the Sannleikur Mottekilegur 


Fleiri 4 the Botn af Bladsida 
Hvernig til hafa Eilifur Lif 


Vi6 ert gladur ef this listi ( af been bei6ni til Gud ) er feer til 
adstoda pu. Vid skilja this mega ekki vera the bestur eda 
arangursrikur pyding. Vid skilja pessi there ert margir 6likur 
lifnadarheettir af tj4ning hugsun og ord. Ef pu hafa a 
uppastunga fyrir a betri pyding , eda ef pt vildi eins og til 


taka a litill magn af pinn timi til senda uppastunga til okkur , 
pu vilja vera skammtur pusund af annar félk einnig , hver 
vilja pa lesa the beta pyding. 


Vi6 oft hafa a Nyja testamentid laus f pinn tungumal eda if 
tungum4al pessi ert sjaldgefur eda gamall. Ef pt ert utlit fyrir 
a Nyja testamentid { a sérstakur tungumal , pdéknast skrifa til 
okkur. Einnig , vid vilja til vera viss og reyna til midla pessi 
stundum , vid gera tilbod b6k pessi ert ekki Frjals og pessi 
gera kostnadur peningar. En ef pt: geta ekki hafa efni 4 
sumir af pessir rafteknilegur bék , vid geta oft gera 
6akvedinn greinir { ensku skipti af rafteknilegur bék fyrir 
hjalpa med pyding eda pyding vinna. Pu gera ekki verda ad 
vera a faglegur verkamadur , eini a venjulegur manneskja 
hver er dhugasamur i skammtur. bu 6xl hafa a tlva eda pt 
ox] hafa adgangur til a tolva 4 pinn heimamadur bokasafn 
eda haskoli eda hask6li , sidan pessir venjulega hafa betri 
tengsl til the. bi geta einnig venjulega stofnsetja pinn eiga 
persOnulegur FRJALS rafteknilegur péstur reikningur vid 
a0 fara til mail.yahoo.com 


Péknast taka a augnablik til finna the rafteknilegur pdostur 
heimilisfang stadgreina 4 the botn eda the endir af this 
bladsida. Vid von pti vilja senda rafteknilegur postur til 
okkur , ef this er af hjélpa eda hvatning. Vid einnig hvetja 
pu til snerting okkur vidvikjandi Rafteeknilegur Bok pessi 
vid tilbod pessi ert 4n kostnadur , og frjals. 


Vid gera hafa margir b6k f erlendur tungumal , en vid gera 
ekki alltaf stadur pa til taka 4 méti electronically ( seekja 
skra af fjarlegri télvu ) pvi vid eini gera laus the bék eda the 
atridi pessi ert the beidni. Vid hvetja pti til halda afram til 
bidja til Gud og til halda afram til lara 6dur i Hann vid 


lestur the Nyja testamentid. Vid velkominn pinn spurning og 
athugasemd vid rafteeknilegur pdéstur. 


KEEEKEEKEEEKEKEKEKEKEKEEEKEKEEEK 


Danish - Danemark 


Danish - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in Danish Language 


Prayer Danish Dannish Denmark Jesus Bon hen til God Hvor Bed 
kunne hore mig Hvor opfordre indromme haelp hen mig 

Taler hen til God , den Skaberen i den Alt , den Lord : 1. at 
jer ville indrgmme hen til mig den mod hen til bed den sager 
at JEG savn hen til bed 


2. at jer ville indrgmme hen til mig den mod hen til tro jer 
og optage hvad jer ville gerne lave hos mig liv , istedet for 
mig ophgje mig besidde vil ( hensigt ) ovenfor jeres. 


3. at jer ville indrgmme mig hjelp hen til ikke lade mig 
skrek i den ubekendt hen til blive den bede om tilgivelse , 
eller den holdepunkt nemlig mig ikke hen til anrette you. 


4. at jer ville indrgmme mig hjelp hen til se efter og hen til 
lere hvor hen til nyde den appel krzefter JEG savn ( 
igennem jeres ord den Bibel ) en ) nemlig den begivenheder 
foran og b ) nemlig mig besidde personlig appel rejse. 


5. At jer God ville indrgmme mig hjelp hen til ville gerne 
anrette Jer flere 


6. At jer ville erindre mig hen til samtale hos jer prayerwhen 
) Jeg er kuldkastet eller i problem , istedet for pr@ver hen til 
Igse sager selv bare igennem mig human krefter. 


7. At jer ville indrémme mig Klogskab og en hjerte fyldte 
hos Bibelsk Klogskab i den grad at JEG ville anrette jer 
flere effektive. 


8. At jer ville indrgmme mig en lyst hen til lese jeres ord , 
den Bibel , (den Ny Testamente Gospel i John ), oven pa en 
personlig holdepunkt 


9. at jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig i den grad at Jeg er 
kgbedygtig marke sager i den Bibel ( jeres ord ) hvilke JEG 
kunne jeg for mit vedkommende henh¢gre til , og at vil hjelp 
mig opfatte hvad jer savn mig hen til lave i mig liv. 


10. At jer ville indrgmme mig stor discernment , hen til 
opfatte hvor hen til forklare hen til andre hvem du er , og at 
JEG ville vere 1 stand til lere hvor hen til lere og kende 
hvor hen til rage op nemlig jer og jeres ord ( den Bibel ) 


11. At jer ville overbringe folk ( eller websites ) i mig liv 
hvem ville gerne kende jer , og hvem er kraftig 1 deres 
ngjagtig opfattelse i jer God ); og At jer ville overbringe 
folk ( eller websites ) i mig liv hvem vil vere i stand til give 
mod mig hen til akkurat lzere hvor hen til skille den Bibel 
den ord i sandhed Timothy 215:). 


12. At jer ville hjzlp mig hen til lere hen til nyde stor 
opfattelse hvorom Bibel gengivelse er bedst , hvilke er hgjst 
ngjagtig , og hvilke har den hgjst appel kreefter & kraft , og 
hvilke gengivelse indvilliger hos den selvstendig 
handskreven at jer inspireret den forfatteres i den Ny 
Testamente hen til skriv. 


13. At jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig hen til hjelp mig 
gang i en artig made , og ikke hen til affald mig gang oven 
pa Falsk eller indholdsl¢s metoder hen til komme nzrmere 
hen til God ( men at er ikke sandelig Bibelsk ), og der hvor 
dem metoder opfore for ikke sa lenge siden periode eller 
varer appel fruit. 


14. At jer ville indrgmme hjzlp hen til mig hen til opfatte 
hvad hen til kigge efter i en kirke eller en opstille i 
andagtsggende , hvad arter i spgrgsmal hen til opfordre , og 
at jer ville hjzlp mig hen til hitte tro eller en sidst hos stor 
appel klogskab istedet for nemme eller falsk svar. 


15. at jer ville hidfgre mig hen til huske hen til lare udenad 
jeres ord den Bibel ( sasom Romersk 8), i den grad at JEG 
kunne nyde sig i mig hjerte og nyde mig indre forberedt , og 
vere rede til at indr@mme en besvare hen til andre i den 
habe pa at Jeg har omkring jer. 


16. At jer ville overbringe hjzlp hen til mig i den grad at 
mig besidde theology og doctrines hen til samtykke med 
jeres ord , den Bibel og at jer ville fortszette hen til hjelp 
mig kende hvor mig opfattelse i doctrine kan forbedret i den 
grad at mig besidde liv lifestyle og opfattelse fortszetter at 
blive ngjere hvortil jer savn sig at blive nemlig mig. 


17. At jer ville lukke op mig appel indblik ( afslutninger ) 
flere og flere , og at der hvor mig opfattelse eller 
opfattelsesevne i jer er ikke ngjagtig , at jer ville hjelp mig 
hen til lare hvem Jesus Christ sandelig er. 


18. At jer ville indrgmme hjelp hen til mig i den grad at 
JEG ville vere i stand til selvsteendig hvilken som helst 
falsk rituals hvilke Jeg har afhzenge oven pa , af jeres slette 
lerer i den Bibel , eventuel hvoraf Jeg er neste er ikke 1 God 


, eller er imod hvad jer ville gerne belzere os omkring neste 
jer. 


19. At hvilken som helst tvinger i darlig ville ikke holde 
bortrejst hvilken som helst appel opfattelse hvilke Jeg har , 
men nermest at JEG ville beholde den kundskab i hvor hen 
til kende jer og ikke at blive narrede i i denne tid i appel 
bedrag. 


20. At jer ville overbringe appel krefter og hjzlp hen til mig 
i den grad at Ja ikke at blive noget af den Stor Nedadgaende 
Bortrejst eller i hvilken som helst bevegelse som kunne 
vere spiritually counterfeit hen til jer og hen til jeres Hellig 
Ord 


21. At selv om der er alt at Jeg har skakmat mig liv , eller 
hvilken som helst made at Jeg har ikke reageret hen til jer 
nemlig JEG burde nyde og det vil sige afholder mig af enten 
den ene eller den anden af omvandrende hos jer , eller har 
opfattelse , at jer ville overbringe dem sager / svar / 
begivenheder igen i mig indre , i den grad at JEG ville afsta 
fra sig i den Benevne i Jesus Christ , og al i deres effekter 
og fglger , og at jer ville skifte ud hvilken som helst tomhed 
,sadness eller opgive habet i mig liv hos den Glede i den 
Lord , og at JEG ville vere flere indstille oven pa indlering 
hen til komme efter jer af lzsning jeres ord , den Bibel 


22. At jer ville lukke op mig gjne i den grad at JEG ville 
vere i stand til klart se efter og anerkende selv om der er en 
Stor Bedrag omkring Appel emner , hvor hen til opfatte 
indeverende phenomenon ( eller disse begivenheder ) af en 
Bibelsk perspektiv , og at jer ville indrgmme mig klogskab 
hen til kende hvorfor at Ja lere hvor hen til hjelp mig 
bekendte og elske ones ( slegtninge ) ikke vere noget af it. 


23. At jer ville sikre sig at nar forst mig @jne er anlagde og 
mig indre forstar den appel veegt i indeveerende 
begivenheder indtagelse opstille pa jorden , at jer ville legge 
til rette mig hjerte hen til optage jeres sandhed , og at jer 
ville hjzlp mig opfatte hvor hen til hitte mod og krefter 
igennem jeres Hellig Ord , den Bibel. I den benevne i Jesus 
Christ , JEG anmode om disse sager bekrzeftende mig lyst at 
blive overensstemmende jeres vil , og Jeg er bede om 
nemlig jeres klogskab og hen til nyde en kerlighed til den 
Sandhed Amen 


Flere forneden Side 
Hvor hen til nyde Evig Liv 


Vier glad selv om indeverende liste over ( bgn anmoder 
hen til God ) er kan hen til hjzlpe jer. Vi opfatte 
indeverende ma ikke vere den bedst eller hgjst effektiv 
gengivelse. Vi er klar over, at der er mange anderledes veje i 
gengivelse indfald og ord. Selv om du har en henstilling 
nemlig en bedre gengivelse , eller selv om jer ville gerne 
hen til holde en ringe belgb i jeres gang hen til sende 
antydninger hen til os , jer vil vere hjalp tusindvis 1 andre 
ligeledes , hvem vil sa er der ikke mere lzese den forbedret 
gengivelse. 


Vi ofte nyde en Ny Testamente anvendelig i jeres sprog eller 
i sprogene at er sjzlden eller forhenveerende. Selv om du er 
ser ud nemlig en Ny Testamente i en specifik sprog , behage 
henvende sig til os. Ligeledes , vi ville gerne vere sikker og 
pr@ve hen til overfgrer at engang imellem , vi lave pristilbud 
bgger at er ufri og at lave omkostninger penge. Men selv om 
jer kan ikke afgive noget af dem elektronisk bgger , vi 
kunne ofte lave en udveksle i elektronisk bgger nemlig 


hjelp hos gengivelse eller gengivelse arbejde. Jer som ikke 
har at blive en professional arbejder , kun fa sand 
pagzeldende hvem er interesseret i hjalp. 


Jer burde nyde en computer eller jer burde have adgang til 
en computer henne ved jeres lokal bibliotek eller kollegium 
eller universitet , siden dem til hverdag nyde bedre 
sleegtskaber hen til den indre. Jer kunne ligeledes til hverdag 
indrette jeres besidde personlig OMKOSTNINGSFRIT 
elektronisk indlevere beretning af igangverende hen til 
mail.yahoo.com 


Ht 


Behage holde for et gjeblik siden hen til hitte den 
elektronisk indlevere henvende placeret nederst eller den 
enden pa legen indeveerende side. Vi hab jer vil sende 
elektronisk indlevere hen til os , selv om indevzrende er i 
hjelp eller ophjzlpning. Vi ligeledes give mod jer hen til 
henvende sig til os med henblik pa Elektronisk Bgger at vi 
pristilbud at er uden omkostninger , og omkostningsfrit. 


Vi lave nyde mange bgger i udenlandsk sprogene , men vi 
lave ikke altid opstille sig hen til byde velkommen 
elektronisk ( dataoverfgre ) fordi vi bare skabe anvendelig 
den bgger eller den emner at er den hgjst anmodede. 


Vi give mod jer hen til fortszette hen til bed hen til God og 
hen til fortsatte hen til lere omkring Sig af lasning den Ny 
Testamente. Vi velkommen jeres spgrgsmal og 
bemerkninger af elektronisk indlevere. 


KEKE KEEEKEEEEKEEEEEEKEEKEKE 


Norway - Norway — Norwegian - 


Norway - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained 
in Norwegian Language 


Norway Norwegian Nordic Prayer Jesus Christ a God Hvor Be 
kanne hore meg bonn anmode gir hjelpe meg finner sprit Som kan 
ledes 


Snakker a God , skaperen av det Univers , det Lord : 


1. det du ville gir 4 meg tapperheten a be tingene det JEG 
ngd a be 

2. det du ville gir 4 meg tapperheten 4 mene du og 
godkjenne hva du vil gjerne gjg@re med meg livet , istedet for 
meg opphgye meg egen ville ( hensikten ) over din. 


3. det du ville gir meg hjelpe 4 ikke utleie meg rank av det 
ubekjent a bli det be om tilgivelse , eller grunnlaget for meg 
ikke for a anrette you. 


4. det du ville gir meg hjelpe a se og a h¢gre hvor a har den 
sprit styrke JEG ngd ( igjennom din ord bibelen ) en ) for 
begivenhetene for ut og b ) for meg egen personlig sprit 
reise. 


5. Det du God ville gir meg hjelpe a vil gjerne anrette Du 
flere 


6. Det du ville minne meg a samtalen med du prayerwhen ) 
JEG er frustrert eller inne problemet , istedet for prover a 
Igse saker meg selv bare igjennom meg human styrke. 


7. Det du ville gir meg Klokskap og en hjertet fylte med 
Bibelsk Klokskap i den grad at JEG ville anrette du flere 
effektivt. 


8. Det du ville gir meg en gnske a studere din ord , bibelen , 
( det Ny Testamentet Gospel av John ), opp pa en personlig 
basis 


9. det du ville gir assistanse 4 meg i den grad at JEG er 
kj@pedyktig legge merke til saker inne bibelen ( din ord ) 
hvilke JEG kanne personlig fortelle til , og det vill hjelpe 
meg oppfatte hva du gnske meg 4 gjgre inne meg livet. 


10. Det du ville gir meg stor discernment , a oppfatte hvor a 
forklare 4 andre hvem du er , og det JEG ville vere i stand 
til hgre hvor a hgre og vite hvor a sta opp for du og din ord ( 
bibelen ) 


11. Det du ville bringe folk ( eller websites ) inne meg livet 
hvem vil gjerne vite du , og hvem er kraftig inne deres 
akkurat forstaelse av du God ); og Det du ville bringe folk ( 
eller websites ) inne meg livet hvem ville vere i stand til 
oppmuntre meg a akkurat hgre hvor a dividere bibelen ordet 
av sannhet (Timothy 215:). 


12. Det du ville hjelpe meg a hgre a ha stor forstaelse om 
hvilken Bibel versjon er best , hvilke er hgyst akkurat , og 
hvilke har de fleste sprit styrke & makt , og hvilke versjon 
avtaler med det original manuskriptet det du inspirert 
forfatternes av det Ny Testamentet a skrive. 


13. Det du ville gir hjelpe 4 meg a bruk meg tid inne en fint 
vei , og ikke for a sléseri meg tid opp pa False eller tom 
emballasje metoder 4 komme nermere a God ( bortsett fra 


det er ikke virkelig Bibelsk ), og der hvor dem metoder 
tilvirke for ikke sa lenge siden frist eller varer sprit fruit. 


14. Det du ville gir assistanse 4 meg a oppfatte hva a kikke 
etter inne en kirken eller en sted av -tilbeder , hva arter av 
spgrsmal a anmode , og det du ville hjelpe meg 4 finner 
mene eller en fortid med stor sprit klokskap istedet for lett 
eller false svar. 


15. det du ville anledning meg 4 erindre 4 huske din ord 
bibelen (som Romersk 8), i den grad at JEG kanne ha den 
inne meg hjertet og ha meg sinn ferdig , og vere rede til a 
gir en svaret a andre av det hape pa at JEG ha om du. 


16. Det du ville bringe hjelpe 4 meg i den grad at meg egen 
theology og doctrines a vere enig i din ord , bibelen og det 
du ville fortsette 4 hjelpe meg vite hvor meg forstaelse av 
doctrine kan forbedret i den grad at meg egen livet lifestyle 
og forstaelse fortsetter 4 bli ngyere hvorfor du gnske den a 
bli for meg. 


17. Det du ville apen meg sprit innblikk ( konklusjonene ) 
flere og flere , og det der hvor meg forstaelse eller 
oppfattelse av du er ikke akkurat , det du ville hjelpe meg a 
hgre hvem Jesus Christ virkelig er. 


18. Det du ville gir hjelpe 4 meg i den grad at JEG ville 
vere i stand til separat alle false rituals hvilke JEG ha 
avhenge opp pa, fra din helt lzrer inne bibelen , eventuell 
av hva JEG fglger er ikke av God , eller er 1 motsetning til 
hva du vil gjerne lere oss om fulgte du. 


19. Det alle presser av darlig ville ikke ta fjerne alle sprit 
forstaelse hvilke JEG ha , bortsett fra temmelig det JEG 
ville selge i detalj kjennskapen til hvor a vite du og ikke for 
a vere narret inne i disse dager av sprit bedrag. 


20. Det du ville bringe sprit styrke og hjelpe 4 meg i den 
grad at Jeg vil ikke for 4 vere del av det Stor Faller Fjerne 
eller av alle bevegelse hvilket kunne vere spiritually 
counterfeit 4 du og 4 din Hellig Ord 


21. Det hvis det er alt det JEG ha gjort det meg livet , eller 
alle vei det JEG ha ikke reagert a du idet JEG burde ha og 
det er forhindrer meg fra enten den ene eller den andre av 
gaing med du, eller har forstaelse , det du ville bringe dem 
saker / svar / begivenheter rygg i meg sinn , 1 den grad at 
JEG ville renonsere pa seg inne navnet av Jesus Christ , og 
alle av deres virkninger og konsekvensene , og det du ville 
ombytte alle tomhet ,sadness eller gi opp hapet inne meg 
livet med det Glede av det Lord , og det JEG ville vere flere 
fokusere opp pa innlering a fdlge etter etter du av lesing din 
ord , det Bibel 


22. Det du ville apen meg eyes i den grad at JEG ville vere i 
stand til klare se og anerkjenne hvis det er en Stor Bedrag 
om Sprit emner , hvor 4 oppfatte denne phenomenon ( eller 
disse begivenheter ) fra en Bibelsk perspektiv , og det du 
ville gir meg klokskap a vite hvorfor det Jeg vil hgre hvor a 
hjelpe meg venner og elsket seg ( slektningene ) ikke vere 
del av it. 


23. Det du ville sikre det en gang meg eyes er apen og meg 
sinn forstar det sprit vekt av aktuelle begivenheter tar sted 
pa jorden , det du ville forberede meg hjertet 4 godkjenne 
din sannhet , og det du ville hjelpe meg oppfatte hvor a 
finner tapperheten og styrke igjennom din Hellig Ord , 
bibelen. Inne navnet av Jesus Christ , JEG anmode om disse 
saker bekreftende meg gnske a bli i folge avtalen din ville , 
og JEG spor til deres klokskap og a har en kjerlighet til det 
Sannhet Samarbeidsvillig 


Flere pa bunnen av Side 
Hvor a ha Evig Livet 


Vier glad hvis denne liste over ( bénn anmoder a God ) er 
dugelig a hjelpe du. Vi oppfatte denne kanskje ikke vere det 
best eller hgyst effektiv oversettelse. Vi forsta det der er 
mange annerledes veier av gjengivelsen innfall og ord. Hvis 
du har en forslag for en bedre oversettelse , eller hvis du 
ville like a ta en liten belgpet av din tid 4 sende antydninger 
a oss , du ville vere hjalp tusenvis av andre mennesker 
likeledes , hvem ville sa lese det forbedret oversettelse. Vi 
ofte har en Ny Testamentet anvendelig inne din 
omgangssprak eller inne sprakene det er sjelden eller gamle. 
Hvis du er ser for en Ny Testamentet inne en spesifikk 
omgangssprak , behage skrive til oss. Likeledes , vi vil 
gjerne vere sikker og prove a meddele det en gang imellom 
, Vi gjgre tilbud bgker det er ufri og det gjgre bekostning 
pengene. 


Bortsett fra hvis du kan ikke by noen av dem elektronisk 
bgker , vi kanne ofte gjgre en bytte av elektronisk bg@ker for 
hjelpe med oversettelse eller oversettelse arbeide. Du som 
ikke har a bli en profesjonell arbeider , kun fa stamgjest 
personen hvem er interessert i hjalp. Du burde har en 
computer eller du burde ha adgang til en computer for din 
innenbys bibliotek eller universitet eller universitet , siden 
dem vanligvis ha bedre forbindelser 4 det sykehuslege. Du 
kanne likeledes vanligvis opprette din egen personlig 
LEDIG elektronisk innlevere regningen av gar a 
mail.yahoo.com 


Behage ta en gyeblikk a finner det elektronisk innlevere 
henvende seg lokalisert nederst eller utgangen av denne 
side. Vi hape du ville sende elektronisk innlevere a oss , 


hvis denne er av hjelpe eller oppmuntring. Vi likeledes 
oppmuntre du a sette seg i forbindelse med oss angaende 
Elektronisk Bgker det vi tilbud det er uten bekostning , og 
ledig. 


Vi gjgre ha mange b¢gker inne utenlandsk sprakene , bortsett 
fra vi ikke alltid sted seg a fa elektronisk ( dataoverf¢re ) 
fordi vi bare lage anvendelig bgkene eller emnene det er de 
fleste anmodet. Vi oppmuntre du a fortsette 4 be a God og a 
fortsette 4 hgre om Seg av lesing det Ny Testamentet. Vi 
velkommen din spgrsmal og kommentarer av elektronisk 
innlevere. 


KEKE KEKEKKEEEKEEEEEEKEEKKE 


Modern Greek 


TIpocevyi] oto M6 Ayanntéc Oedc, Lac evyaptotobue OTL 
ovtd To Evayyédo 1H avti] 1 véa ova8yKn exer 
omerevbepwbet Etot WoTE Eipaote oe HoT va UGBoDLE 
TEPLOGOTEPOV ya. oac. Mapaxara PonOjote touc 
OVOPMTOVSG UPLLOSLOVS VIA VO. KATAOTI{GEL GVTO TO 
NAEKTPOVIKO BIBAIO SLABEOIWLO. Hépete Toor civat Kou eiote 
o€ Bé07 va TOV PonPrjoete. Tapakarw tove PonOrjote ya 
va ciote o€ OéoT va. amaoyoANOei ypriyopa, KaL vo. 
KOTAOTIOEL GE TEPLOGOTEPA NAEKTPOVIKE PiPAIG. dLABESILA 
Tlapakora tovg PonOrjote yia va éyete OAOUG Tovs TOPOUG, 
TO YPNWATG, TH SUVALN KO TO YPOvO OTL ypELaCovtaL 
TPOKEMEVOD Va. cival cE VEonT va ovvEeyxicovv VIG oUC. 
Tlapaxor® PonPyote exeivor nov civat Wépoc THs OWddaC 
Tov tous Ponda oe kaOnuEepwy Paéon. Mapakarka tovc 
Sorte TH SOVaLN yla va. ovveyicete Kal va dWoetE o€ KéVE 
évav a6 TOVG TO OTIPiTOODOA ZOD KaToAGPatver ya THV 


epyacia Ott Tous béAete ya va. Kevete. Topakor Pon8ijote 
KQ0E Evac ANd TOUG YLO Va. [INV EXETE TO MOBO KON yLA Va. 
OvuNndeite Ott ciote 0 OEdc NOV GTAVTE OTHV TPOGEDYT KOL 
Tov eivar vmEvOvvos ya. 6G. 

Tlpocevyonon ott 8a tous evOappbvate, Ko OTL TOUG 
TPOOTATEVvETE, Kal N Epyacia & To vaovpyEio OTL 
ODLETEXYOUV. 

Tlpocevyopot Ott 8a TOUS TPOOTATEVATE ANG TIS TVEVLATUKES 
SvvauEts 1] GAAG EuTddLa TOD Oa LOPObOaV va TOLG 
BAGyoov 7] va tous exiBpadbdvovv. TapakorAw pe Pon8ijote 
OTAV YPTOWMLOTOLD OOTIV THV VEG OLAO KH yla va. OKEMTA 
ETLONS TOUS AVOPMAOVG TOV EYOVV KOATHOTI|GEL ODTHV THV 
ExdOoT SLAHEOLLN, ETOL MOTE LTOPH Va TPOGENIA yia TOUG 
KOL ETOL LAOPODV Va ovvExicovv va Ponfovv TEpLloodtEpoUs 
ovOpaMmovc. 

Tlpocevyouot ott 8a ov Sivate wa ayaa Tov 1ep00 Word 
oac (n vé S1aOHKN), Kou Ott OG LOD divatE THV TVEDLATIKES 
OPOvI|Sy Ko TH SLaKPLON yla va. ous Cép|Eete KAADTEPA KON 
YO. VO. KATOAGPETE TH YPOVIKN TEpiodo Ott Coble LEO. 
Tlapakor® ve BonOjote yia va. cépete NAS va ECETAOEL TIC 
SvoKoriec OTL EPYOMOL AVTLLETOTMOS Le KAVE NEPA. O 
Adpdocg God, pe Bonde yia va BEArjoet va cas CépEt 
KoAvTEPA Kal Va BEAroEt va. BornO1{cEl GAAOUG Xplotiavob< 
OTIV TEPLOXN LOD KAL GE GAO TOV KOGLLO. 

Tlpocevyouor ott 8a divate THV NAEKTPOVUKT] OLGSa BLBAIG@V 
KOL Ekeivol TOV TOV PonPobv Nn Opdvynon cac. Tpocebyouot 
ott 9a PorPovoatEe TA LELOVpEVG LEAN THC OUKOYEVELaS 
TOUG (KO THC OLKOYEVELES LOD) yla va ecamatnBEite dyt 
TVEVUOTUKG, OAAG VIG. VOL GOS KATOAGBETE KOL VLA VOL 
OEAIGETE VO OOS OEYTEITE KOL VA CKOLODOHOETE Le KABE 
TpONO. Exions NAPEYETE WAS THV GvEoN Ko OdI]yiEG O€ 
OVTOVS TOVG YPOVOUS KAI GAG CTO yla va. Kav OMT TA 
TPAYWATA GtO OvouG TOV Inco’, Amen, 


KEEEEEEEEEEKEEKKEEEEKEEKEK 


German — Deutch - Allemand 


German Prayers Gebet zum Gott wie man wie horen kann 
dass meinem Gebet wie bittet Hilfe zu mir zu geben wie 
man geistige Anleitung 


German - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in German Language 


Mit Gott sprechen, der Schépfer des Universums, der Lord: 


1., die Sie zu mir dem Mut, die Sachen zu beten geben 
wiirden, die ich benotige, um 2. zu beten, die Sie zu mir dem 
Mut, Ihnen zu glauben und anzunehmen geben wiirden, was 
Sie mit meinem Leben tun méchten, anstelle von mir meine 
Selbst erhebend Wille (Absicht) iiber Ihrem. 


3., denen Sie mir Hilfe geben wiirden, um meine Furcht vor 
dem Unbekannten die Entschuldigungen nicht werden zu 
lassen oder die Grundlage fiir mich, zum Sie nicht zu 
dienen. 


4., der Sie mir Hilfe, um zu sehen geben wiirden und zu 
erlernen, wie man die geistige Starke ich hat, benotigen Sie 
(durch Ihr Wort die Bibel) A) fiir die Falle voran und B) fiir 
meine eigene personliche geistige Reise. 


5. Da Sie Gott mir Hilfe geben wiirden, um Sie mehr 
dienen zu wiinschen 


6. Da Sie mich erinnern wiirden, mit Ihnen zu sprechen 
(prayer)when mich werden frustriert oder in der 
Schwierigkeit, anstatt zu versuchen, Sachen selbst nur durch 
meine menschliche Starke zu beheben. 


7. DaB Sie mir Klugheit und ein Herz geben wiirden, fiillten 
mit biblischer Klugheit, damit ich Sie effektiv dienen wiirde. 


8. DaB Sie mir einen Wunsch geben wiirden, Ihr Wort, die 
Bibel zu studieren, (das neues Testament-Evangelium von 
John) auf personlicher Ebene 


9. das Sie Unterstiitzung zu mir geben wiirden, damit ich 
bin, Sachen in der Bibel (Ihr Wort) zu beachten der ich auf 
und der pers6nlich beziehen kann mir hilft, zu verstehen, 
was Sie mich in meinem Leben tun wiinschen. 


10. DaB Sie mir groBe Einsicht geben wiirden, um zu 
verstehen wie man anderen erklart, die Sie sind, und da8 ich 
sein wiirde, zu erlernen, wie man erlernt und kann fiir Sie 
und Ihr Wort (die Bibel) oben stehen 


11. DaB Sie Leute (oder Web site) in meinem Leben holen 
wiirden, die Sie kennen mochten und die in ihrem genauen 
Verstindnis von Ihnen stark sind (Gott); und das wiirden Sie 
Leute (oder Web site) in meinem Leben holen, das ist, mich 
anzuregen, genau zu erlernen, wie man die Bibel das Wort 
der Wahrheit (2 Timotheegras 2:15) teilt. 


12. DaB Sie mir helfen wiirden zu erlernen, groBes 
Verstandnis iiber, welche Bibelversion zu haben am besten 
ist, die am genauesten ist und die die geistigste Starke u. die 
Energie hat und dem Version mit den urspriinglichen 
Manuskripten tibereinstimmt, daB Sie die Autoren des neuen 
Testaments anspornten zu schreiben. 


13. DaB Sie mir Hilfe, um meine Zeit in einer guten Weise 
zu verwenden geben wiirden, und meine Zeit auf den 
falschen oder leeren Methoden nicht zu vergeuden, naeher 
an Gott (aber dem, zu erhalten nicht wirklich biblisch seien 
Sie) und wo jene Methoden keine lange Bezeichnung oder 
dauerhafte geistige Frucht produzieren. 


14. DaB Sie mir Unterstiitzung geben wiirden, was zu 
verstehen, in einer Kirche oder in einem Ort der Anbetung 
zu suchen, welche Arten der Fragen zum zu bitten und daB 
Sie mir helfen wiirden, Glaubiger oder einen Pastor mit 
groBer geistiger Klugheit anstelle von den einfachen oder 
falschen Antworten zu finden. 


15. den Sie mich veranlassen wiirden, mich zu erinnern, um 
sich Ihr Wort zu merken die Bibel (wie Romans ist 8), damit 
ich es in meinem Herzen haben und an meinen Verstand 
sich vorbereiten lassen kann, und bereit, eine Antwort zu 
anderen der Hoffnung zu geben, die ich iiber Sie habe. 


16. DaB Sie mir Hilfe damit meine eigene Theologie und 
Lehren holen wiirden, um mit Ihrem Wort, die Bibel 
iibereinzustimmen und da8 Sie fortfahren wiirden, mir zu 
helfen, zu k6nnen, mein Verstandnis der Lehre verbessert 
werden kann, damit mein eigenes Leben, Lebensstil und 
Verstehen fortfahrt, zu sein naéeher an, was Sie es fiir mich 
sein wiinschen. 


17. DaB Sie meinen geistigen Einblick 
(Zusammenfassungen) mehr und mehr 6ffnen wiirden und 
daB, wo mein Verstiandnis oder Vorstellung von Ihnen nicht 
genau ist, daB Sie mir helfen wiirden, zu erlernen, wem 
Jesus Christ wirklich ist. 


18. DaB Sie mir Hilfe geben wiirden, damit ich in der 
LageSEIN wiirde, alle falschen Rituale zu trennen, denen 
ich von, von Ihrem freien Unterricht in der Bibel, wenn 
irgendwelche abgehangen habe von, was ich folgend bin, ist 
nicht vom Gott, oder ist kontrar zu, was Sie uns unterrichten 
wiinschen - tiber das Folgen Sie. 


19. DaB keine Krifte des Ubels nicht irgendwie geistiges 
Verstaindnis wegnehmen wiirden, das ich habe, aber eher, 
daB ich das Wissen behalten wiirde von, wie man Sie kennt 
und nicht an diesen Tagen der geistigen Tauschung betrogen 
wird. 


20. DaB Sie geistige Starke holen und zu mir helfen wiirden, 
damit ich nicht ein Teil von groBen weg fallen oder 
irgendeiner Bewegung bin, die zu Ihnen und zu Ihrem 
heiligen Wort Angelegenheiten nachgemacht sein wiirde. 


21. Das, wenn es alles gibt, das ich in meinem Leben getan 
habe oder irgendeine Weise, da ich nicht auf Sie reagiert 
habe, wie ich haben sollte und die mich entweder am Gehen 
mit Ihnen hindert oder Haben des Verstehens, dafs Sie jene 
things/responses/events zuriick in meinen Verstand, damit 
ich auf sie im Namen Jesus Christ verzichten wiirde, und 
alle ihre von und von Konsequenzen holen wiirden und da 
Sie jede mégliche Leere, Traurigkeit oder Verzweiflung in 
meinem Leben mit der Freude am Lord ersetzen wiirden und 
daB ich mehr auf das Lernen, Ihnen zu folgen gerichtet 
wiirde, indem man Ihr Wort las, die Bibel. 


22. DaB Sie meine Augen 6ffnen wiirden, damit ich in der 
LageSEIN wiirde, offenbar zu sehen und zu erkennen, wenn 
es eine grofe Tauschung tiber geistige Themen gibt, wie 
man dieses Phainomen (oder diese Falle) von einer 
biblischen Perspektive und da8 Sie mir Klugheit geben 
wiirden, um zu wissen und damit ich erlernt versteht, wie 


man meinen Freunden und liebte eine (Verwandte) ein Teil 
von ihm nicht zu sein hilft. 


23 DaB Sie sicherstellen wiirden, da’ einmal meine Augen 
und mein Verstand gedffnet sind, versteht die geistige 
Bedeutung der gegenwartigen Falle, die in der Welt 
stattfinden, daB Sie mein Herz vorbereiten wiirden, um Ihre 
Wahrheit anzunehmen und daB Sie mir helfen wiirden, zu 
verstehen, wie man Mut und Starke durch Ihr heiliges Wort, 
die Bibel findet. Im Namen Jesus Christ, bitte ich um diese 
Sachen, die meinen Wunsch bestatigen, Ihr Wille 
tibereinzustimmen, und ich bitte um Ihre Klugheit und eine 
Liebe der Wahrheit zu haben, Amen. 


Mehr an der Unterseite der Seite 
wie man ewiges Leben u. 
Hat 


Wir sind froh, wenn diese Liste (der Gebetantrége zum 
Gott) in der LageIST, Sie zu unterstiitzen. Wir verstehen, 
daB diese méglicherweise nicht die beste oder 
wirkungsvollste Ubersetzung sein kann. Wir verstehen, daB 
es viele unterschiedliche Weisen des Ausdriickens von von 
Gedanken und von von Wortern gibt. Wenn Sie einen 
Vorschlag fiir eine bessere Ubersetzung haben oder wenn 
Sie etwas Ihrer Zeit dauern mochten, Vorschlage zu 
schicken uns, werden Sie Tausenden der Leute auch helfen, 
die dann die verbesserte Ubersetzung lesen. Wir haben 
haufig ein neues Testament, das in Ihrer Sprache oder in den 
Sprachen vorhanden ist, die selten oder alt sind. 


Wenn Sie nach einem neuen Testament in einer spezifischen 
Sprache suchen, schreiben Sie uns bitte. Auch wir méchten 
sicher sein und versuchen, das manchmal mitzuteilen, bieten 
wir Biicher an, die nicht frei sind und die Geld kosten. 

Aber, wenn Sie nicht einige jener elektronischen Biicher 
sich leisten kOnnen, k6nnen wir einen Austausch der 
elektronischen Biicher fiir Hilfe bei der Ubersetzung oder 
bei der Ubersetzung Arbeit hiufig tun. Sie miissen nicht ein 
professioneller Arbeiter sein, nur eine regelmaBige Person, 
die interessiert ist, an zu helfen. 


Sie sollten einen Computer haben, oder Sie sollten Zugang 
zu einem Computer an Ihrer lokalen Bibliothek oder 
Hochschule oder Universitat haben, da die normalerweise 
bessere Anschliisse zum Internet haben. Sie kénnen Ihr 
eigenes personliches FREIES Konto der elektronischen 
Post, indem Sie zum mail.yahoo.com 


auch normalerweise herstellen gehen dauern bitte einen 
Moment, um die Adresse der elektronischen Post zu finden 
befunden an der Unterseite oder am Ende dieser Seite. 

Wir hoffen, daB Sie uns elektronische Post schicken, wenn 
diese hilfreich oder Ermutigung ist. Wir regen Sie auch an, 
mit uns hinsichtlich der elektronischen Biicher in 
Verbindung zu treten, die wir dem sind ohne Kosten und 
freies 


anbieten, die, wir viele Biicher in den Fremdsprachen haben, 
aber wir nicht sie immer setzen, um elektronisch zu 
empfangen (Download) weil wir nur vorhanden die Biicher 
oder die Themen bilden, die erbeten sind. Wir regen Sie an 
fortzufahren, zum Gott zu beten und fortzufahren, iiber ihn 
zu erlernen, indem wir das neue Testament lesen. Wir 


begriiBen Ihre Fragen und Anmerkungen durch 
elektronische Post. 


KEKE EEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEKEKEEEEKEEK 


Caro Deus , Obrigada que esta Novo Testamento tem sido 
langado de modo a que nds somos capaz aprender mais 
sobre a ti. Por favor ajudar a gente responsavel por fazendo 
esta Electronico livro disponivel. 

Por favor ajudar eles estarem capaz de trabalho rapidamente 
, e fazer mais Electronico livros disponivel Por favor ajudar 
eles haverem todos os recursos , 0 dinheiro , a forcga e as 
horas que elas precisar a fim de ser capaz de guardar 
trabalhando para si. 

Por favor ajudar aquelas esse are parte da equipa essa ajuda 
Ihes num todos os dias base. Por favor dar lhes a forca 
continuar e dar cada deles 0 espiritual comprendendo para o 
trabalho que vocé quer eles fazerem. Por favor ajudar cada 
um deles para nao ter medo e lembrar que tu és 0 deus 0 
qual respostas oragéo e quem é encarregado de todas as 
coisas. 

EU orar que a ti would encorajar lhes , e que vocé protege 
Ihes , e o trabalho & ministério que elas so comprometido 
em. EU orar que vocé protegeria lhes de o Espiritual Forgas 
ou outro barreiras isso podeia ser maleficio lhes ou lento 
Ihes abaixo. 

Por favor ajudar a mim quando Eu uso esta Novo 
Testamento para também reflectir a gente o qual ter feito 
esta edi¢ao disponivel , de modo a que eu possa orar para 
eles e por conseguinte eles podem continuar ajudar mais 


pessoas EU orar que vocé daria a mim um amar do seu 
Divino Palavra ( 0 novo Testamento ), e que vocé daria a 
mim espiritual sabedoria e discernment conhecer a ti melhor 
e para comprender 0 periodo de tempo que nés somos 
vivendo em. 

Por favor ajudar eu saber como lidar com as dificuldades 
que Eu sou confrontado com todos os dias. Lorde Deus , 
Ajudar eu querer conhecer a ti Melhor e querer ajudar outro 
Christian no meu area e pelo mundo. EU orar que vocé daria 
o Electronico livro equipa e aquelas o qual trabalho no 
Websters e aqueles que ajudar Ihes seu sabedoria. EU orar 
que vocé ajudaria o individuo membros do seu familia (ea 
minha familia ) para nao ser espiritual enganar , mas 
comprender a ti e querer aceitar e seguir a ti em todos 
bastante. e Eu pergunto vocé fazer estas coisas em nome de 
Jesus , Amen , 


Dear God, 


Thank you that this New Testament 
has been released so that we are able 
to learn more about you. 


Please help the people responsible for making this 
Electronic book available. Please help them to be able to 
work fast, and make more Electronic books available 
Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the 
strength and the time that they need in order to be able to 
keep working for You. 


Please help those that are part of the team that help them on 
an everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue 
and give each of them the spiritual understanding for the 
work that you want them to do. Please help each of them to 
not have fear and to remember that you are the God who 


answers prayer and who is in charge of everything. 


I pray that you would encourage them, and that you protect 
them, and the work & ministry that they are engaged in. 

I pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual Forces 
or other obstacles that could harm them or slow them down. 


Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think 
of the people who have made this edition available, so that I 
can pray for them and so they can continue to help more 
people 


I pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word 
(the New Testament), and that you would give me spiritual 
wisdom and discernment to know you better and to 
understand the period of time that we are living in. 


Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that 
I am confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want 
to know you Better and to want to help other Christians in 
my area and around the world. 


I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and 
those who work on the website and those who help them 
your wisdom. 


I pray that you would help the individual members of their 
family (and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but 
to understand you and to want to accept and follow you in 
every way. 


and I ask you to do these things in the name of Jesus, 
Amen, 


888888 


KKEEEEKEKEKKEEKEKEKEEEKEEEKEEEKE 
KEKEEEKEEEEEKEEKEKEEEEKEKEEEK 


Croatian Croatian Croatian 


Croatian - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained 
in Croatian Language 


Croatian Croatia Prayer Isus Krist Moljenje to Bog Kako to 
Moliti moze cuti moj pitati popustanje ponuditi mene 


Govorenje to Bog , Stvoritelj dana Svemir , Gospodar : 


1. taj te Ce popuStanje meni u hrabrost to moliti predmet taj 
Trebam to moliti 


2. taj te Ce popuStanje meni u hrabrost to vjerovati te i 
prihvatiti Sto koji Zelite za napraviti sa mojim Zivot , 
umjesto mene uznijeti moj posjedovati htijenje ( namjera ) 
iznad tvoj. 


3. taj te Ce popuStanje mene ponuditi ne pustiti moj 
strahovanje dana nepoznat postati isprika , ili baza za mene 
ne to posluZitelj you. 


4. taj te Ce popuStanje mene ponuditi vidjeti i nauciti kako to 
imati duhovni snaga Trebam ( preko tvoj rije¢ Biblija ) ) za 
jedan dan dogadaj ispred i b ) za moj posjedovati osobni 
duhovni putovanje. 


5. Taj te Bog ¢e popuStanje mene ponuditi iStanje to 
posluZitelj Te vise 


6. Taj te Ce podsjetiti mene to pri€ati sa te prayerwhen ) Ja 
sam frustriran ili u problemima , umjesto tezak to odluka 
predmet ja osobno jedini preko moj Covjecji snaga. 


7. Taj te Ge popuStanje mene Mudrost 1 srce ispunjen sa 
Biblijski Mudrost tako da JA ¢e posluZitelj te viSe efektivno. 


8. Taj te Ce popuStanje mene Zelja to studirati tvoj rijec , 
Biblija , (novim Oporuka Evandelje od John ), na osobni 
baza 


9. taj te Ce popuStanje pomoé meni u tako da Ja sam u 
moguénosti to obavijest predmet in Biblija ( tvoj rijeé ) Sto 
Ja mogu osobni povezivati se , 1 da htijenje pomo¢é mene 
shvatiti Sto koji Zelite mene za napraviti u mojem Zivot. 


10. Taj te Ce popuStanje mene velik raspoznavanje , to 
shvatiti kako to objasniti to ostali tko ti si, ida JA bi bilo u 
mogucnosti nauciti kako nauciti i znati kako to pristajati uza 
Sto te i tvoj rijet ( Biblija ) 


11. Taj te ce donijeti narod (ili websiteovi ) u mojem Zivot 
tko iStanje to znati te , 1 tko jesu jak in njihov toénost 
sporazum od te ( bog ); i da te €e donijeti narod ( ili 
websiteovi ) u mojem Zivot koji Ce biti u mogucnosti to 
hrabriti mene to precizan naucite kako podijeliti Biblija rijeé 
od istina (2 PlaSljiv 215:). 


12. Taj te Ce pomoé mene nauCiti to imati velik sporazum o 
Sto Biblija ina¢ici je najbolji , Sto je vecina to€nost , i Sto je 
preko duhovni snaga & Power PC , i Sto inacici sporazum sa 
izvorni rukopis taj te nadahnut autorstvo dana Nov Oporuka 
to pisati. 


13. Taj te Ce popuStanje ponuditi mene koriStenje moj 
vrijeme in dobar put , i ne to prosipati moj vrijeme na 
Neistinit ili prazan Metodije da biste dobili Zatvori to Bog ( 
ali koji nisu vjerno Biblijski ), 1 gdje svi oni Metodije 
stvarajuci nijedan €eznuti uvjeti ili trajan duhovni voce. 


14. Taj te Ge popuStanje pomo¢ meni u to shvatiti Sto uciniti 
traziti in Churchill ili mjesto od moliti se , Sto rod od pitanje 
to pitati , 1 da te Ce pomoێ mene pronaci onaj koji vjeruje ili 
pastor sa velik duhovni mudrost umjesto lahak ili neistinit 
odgovoriti. 


15. taj te Ce nanijeti mene to sjecati se to sjeéati se tvoj rijec 
Biblija ( kao Sto je Rumunjski 8), tako da Ja mogu imati 
Internet u mojem srce i imati moj imati Sto protiv spreman , 
i biti spreman to popuStanje odgovoriti to ostali dana 
uzdanica taj Imam o te. 


16. Taj te Ce donijeti ponuditi mene tako da moj posjedovati 
teologija i doktrina to poklapati se tvoj rijeé , Biblija i da te 
ée nastaviti to pomoé mene znati kako moj sporazum od 
doktrina moZe poboljSati tako da moj posjedovati Zivot , stil 
Zivota 1 sporazum nastaviti biti Zatvori to Sto koji Zelite 
Internet biti za mene. 


17. Taj te Ge OpenBSD moj duhovni unutar ( zakljucak ) 
viSe i vise , 1 da gdje svi moj sporazum ili percepcija od te 
nije to¢nost , taj te Ge pomoé mene nauciti tko Isus Krist 
vjerno je. 


18. Taj te Ce popuStanje ponuditi mene tako da JA bi bilo u 
mogucnosti to odijeljen bilo koji neistinit ritualni Sto Imam 
zavisnost na , from tvoj jasan pomoé u ucenju in Biblija , 
ako postoje od Sto Ja sam sljedece nije od Bog , ili je ugovor 
to Sto koji Zelite to vas nauCiti nas o sljedece te. 


19. Taj bilo koji sila od zlo ¢e ne oduteti bilo koji duhovni 
sporazum Sto Imam, ali radije taj JA ¢e évrsto drzati znanje 
kako to znati te i ne biti lukav in te dani od duhovni varka. 


20. Taj te ¢e donijeti duhovni snaga i ponuditi mene tako da 
JA neée biti dio ognjevit Jesen Daleko ili od bilo koji pokret 
Sto bi bilo produhovljeno krivotvoren novac vama i u vas 
Svet Rijeé 


21. Da ako ima je iSta taj Imam ispunjavanja u mojem Zivot 
, ili bilo koji put taj Imam ne odgovaranje vama kao JA 
trebaju imati i da je koji se moZe sprijeciti mene sa ili 
hodanje sa te , ili vlasni8tvo sporazum , taj te €e donijeti oni 
predmet / reakcija / dogadaj leda u moj imati Sto protiv , 
tako da JA Ce odre¢i se njima in ime od Isus Krist , i svi od 
njihov efekt i posljedica , i da te Ce opet staviti bilo koji 
praznina ,sadness ili izgubiti nadu u mojem Zivot sa Ono Sto 
pruza uzitak dana Gospodar , i da JA bi bilo viSe fokusirati 
na znanje to udarac te mimo €itanje tvoj rije€ , Biblija 


22. Taj te Ce OpenBSD moj o€i tako da JA bi bilo u 
mogucnosti to jasno vidjeti 1 prepoznati ako ima Velik 
Varka o Duhovni tema , kako to shvatiti ovaj fenomen ( ili 
te dogadaj ) from Biblijski perspektiva , i da te ce 
popuStanje mene mudrost to znati i tako dalje taj JA htijenje 
naucite kako pomoé moj prijatelj i voljen sam sebe ( 
odnosni ) ne biti dio it. 


23. Taj te ¢e osigurali da jedanput moj o¢i jesu OpenBSD i 
moj imati Sto protiv shvatiti duhovni izrazajnost od tekuc¢i 
dogadaj uzimanje mjesto u svijetu , taj te Ce pripremiti moj 
srce to prihvatiti tvoj istina , i da te Ce pomoé mene shvatiti 
kako prona¢i hrabrost i snaga preko tvoj Svet Rijeé , Biblija. 
In ime od Isus Krist , JA traziti te predmet potvrditi moj 


Zelja biti slozno tvoj htijenje , i Ja sam iskanje tvoj mudrost i 
to imati hatar dana Istina Da 


ViSe podno Stranica 
Kako to imati Vjeéan Zivot 


Mi jesu veseo ako ovaj rub ( od moljenje molba to Bog ) je 
u mogucnosti to pomoci te. Mi shvatiti ovaj moZzda nece biti 
najbolji ili vecina djelotvoran prevodenje. Mi shvatiti koji su 
mnogobrojan razlicit putevi od istiskivanje misao i rijec. 
Ukoliko imati sugestija za bolji prevodenje , ili ukoliko ce 
voljeti uzeti malolitrazan iznos od tvoj vrijeme to poslati 
sugestija nama , te htijenje biti pomoc tisuéa od ostali narod 
isto tako , koji ¢e onda Citanje oplemenjen prevodenje. Mi 
vise puta imati Nov Oporuka raspoloZiv u va§ jezik ili in 
jezik koji su rijedak ili star. Ako ste obli¢je za Nov Oporuka 
in specifiéan jezik , ugoditi korespondirati nas. Isto tako , mi 
iStanje istinabog i pokuSati komunicirati taj katkada , mi 
obaviti ponuda knjiga koji nisu Slobodan i da obaviti troSak 
novac. 


Ali ukoliko ne mo¢i priustiti neki od oni elektronski knjiga , 
mi moze viSe puta obaviti izmjena od elektronski knjiga za 
pomoé sa prevodenje ili prevodenje funkcionirati. Nemate 
biti koji se odnosi na zvanje radnik , samo jedan dan 
pravilan osoba tko je zainteresirana za pomo¢. Te trebaju 
imati racunalo ili te trebaju imati pristup to ra¢unalo at tvo] 
lokalni knjiznica ili fakulteti ili sveuciliSta , otada oni obiéno 
imati bolji povezivanje to Internet. MoZete isto tako obiéno 
utemeljiti tvoj posjedovati osobni SLOBODAN elektronicka 
posta ra¢un odlaskom na mail.yahoo.com 


Ugoditi uzeti tren prona¢i elektroni¢ka poSta adresa smjestiti 
na dnu ili kraj od ovaj stranica. Nadamo se te htijenje poslati 
elektroni¢ka poSta nama , ako ovaj je od pomo¢ ili 
hrabrenje. Mi isto tako hrabriti te to kontakt nas zabrinutost 
Elektronski Knjiga koju nudimo koji su sa troSak , i 
slobodan. 


Mi obaviti imati mnogobrojan knjiga in stran jezik , ali mi 
ne uvijek mjesto njima to primiti elektronski ( preuzimanje 
datoteka ) jer mi jedini izraditi raspoloziv knjiga ili tema 
koji su preko molba. Mi hrabriti te to nastaviti to moliti to 
Bog 1 to nastaviti nauciti o Njemu mimo Citanje novim 
Oporuka. Mi dobrodo8li na tvoj pitanje i komentirajte mimo 
elektroni¢ka poSta. 


KEKEEEKEEE EE KEKEKEEEKEEEEEKEE 


CZECH CZECH TCHEK 


Czech Prayer Modlitba Kristian jezuita Kristus az k Buh Jak 
Modlit Buh pocinovat slyset modlitba k ptat Buh darovat 
pomoci mne 


Czech - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in Czech Language 


Mluveni aZ k Buh , €len ur¢éity Stvofitel of Clen uréity 
Soubor , élen urcity Hospodin : 

1. aby tebe chtél bych darovat aZ k mne Clen urcity kuraz az 
k modlit €len uréity majetek aby Nemusim az k modlit 

2. aby tebe chtél bych darovat az k mne Clen urcity kuraz az 
k domnivat se tebe a prijmout jaky tebe potieba az k jednat 
ma duch , misto mne povysit ja s4m vule ( cil ) nad tvuj. 


3. aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne pomoci az k ne dovolit 
ma bat se of len urcity neznama az k stat se Clen urcity 
odpustit , ci €len urcity baze do mne rozchazet se v nazorech 
slouZzit you. 


4. aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne pomoci az k vidét a az k 
dostat instrukce jak? az k mit len urcity duchovni sila 
Nemusim ( docela tvuj slovo Glen uréity Bible ) jeden ) do 
len urcity prihoda vpfed a b ) do ja sam osobni duchovni 
cesta. 


5. Aby tebe Bth chtél bych darovat mne pomoci aZ k 
potieba az k slouzit Tebe vice 6. Aby tebe chtél bych 
ptipomenout komu mne az k rozmlouvat s tebe prayerwhen 
) JA am zmareny Gi do nesnaz , misto trying a% k analyzovat 
majetek ja s4m ale docela ma lidsky sila. 


7. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne Moudrost a jeden srdce 
nakyp s Biblicky Moudrost tak, Ze JA chtél bych slouZit 
tebe vice efektivni. 8. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne 
jeden porutit aZ k ucenf tviij slovo , Clen urcity Bible , ( 
Novy zakon Evangelium of Jan ), dale jeden osobni baze 


9. aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoc az k mne tak, Ze JA 
am schopny az k oznameni majetek do ¢len urcity Bible ( 
tvuj slovo ) kdo Dovedu co se mé tyée byt v poméru k sem 
tam , to posta¢i pomoci mne dovidat se jaky tebe potfeba 
mne aZ k zavrazdit ma duch. 


10. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne celek bystrost , aZ k 
dovidat se jak? az k jasné se vyjadfit az k jini kdo tebe ar , a 
aby JA chtél bych byt schopny az k dostat instrukce jak? aZ 
k dostat instrukce a vRdRt jak? az k postavit se za tebe a 
tvuj slovo ( élen urcity Bible ) 


11. Aby tebe chtél bych nést lid ( i websites ) do ma duch 
kdo potieba a% k vRdRt tebe , a kdo ar silny do jejich presny 
dohoda of tebe ( buh ); a Aby tebe chtél bych nést lid ( & 
websites ) do ma duch kdo vile byt schopny aZ k dodat 
mysli mne az k pfesny dostat instrukce jak? az k délit clen 
urcity Bible Pismo svaté pravda (2 Bazlivy 215:). 


12. Aby tebe chtél bych pomoci mne az k dostat instrukce aZ 
k mit celek dohoda kolem kdo Bible liéeni is nejlépe , kdo is 
nejéetnéjsi pfesny , a kdo 3sg.préz.od have len urcity 
nejcetnéjsi duchovni sila & mnozZstvi , a kdo li€eni souhlasi 
jit s duchem Casu original rukopis aby tebe dychat Clen 
urcity spisovatele of Novy zakon az k psat. 


13. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoci az k mne az k 
cvi¢eni ma €as do jeden blaho cesta , a rozchazet se v 
nazorech zpustoSit ma Cas dale Chybny ¢i hladovy metody 
az k brat blizky az k Buh ( kdyby ne ar ne opravdu Biblicky 
), a kde those metody napsat ne dlouha hlaska €as €i 
{lasting||stalyl|trvaly} } duchovni nést ovoce. 








14. Aby tebe chtél bych darovat pomoc az k mne az k 
dovidat se jaky az k hledat do jeden cirkev €i jeden bydlisté 
of uctivani , jaky rody of otazky az k ptat se , a aby tebe 
chtél bych pomoci mne az k nalez vérici ¢i jeden duchovni s 
celek duchovni moudrost misto bezstarostny ¢i chybny 
odpovida. 

15. aby tebe chtél bych byt pri¢inou mne na pamétnou az k 
memorovat tvij slovo élen uréity Bible ( jako takovy Riman 
8), tak, Ze Dovedu mit ono do ma srdce a mit m4 mys] 
pfipraveny , a byt hbity az k darovat neur€. Elen byt v 
souhlase s jini of len urcity nadéje aby Mam u sebe tebe. 


16. Aby tebe chtél bych nést pomoci az k mne tak, Ze j4 sm 
bohoslovi a doktrina aZ k souhlasit s tvij slovo , Glen uréity 


Bible a aby tebe chtél bych stale byt pomoci mne vRdRt 
jak? ma dohoda of doktrina pocinovat byt opravit tak, Ze ja 
sam duch lifestyle a dohoda odroéit az k byt blizky k 
jakému téelu tebe potieba ono az k byt pro mne. 


17. Aby tebe chtél bych nechranény ma duchovni jasnozieni 
(konec ) ¢im dale, tim vice , a aby kde ma dohoda €i 
chapavost of tebe is ne presny , aby tebe chtél bych pomoci 
mune az k dostat instrukce kdo Jezuita Kristus opravdu is. 


18. Aby tebe cht&l bych darovat pomoci aZ k mne tak, Ze JA 
chtél bych byt schopny az k oddéleny jakykoliv chybny 
obiad kdo JA mit divéra dale , dle tvij cely doktrina do élen 
uréity Bible , jestli vabec of jaky JA am nasledujici is ne of 
Buh, Ci is proti Cemu jaky tebe potieba aZ k ucit us kolem 
nasledujici tebe. 


19. Aby jakykoliv dohnat of neStésti chtél bych ne odebrat 
jakykoliv duchovni dohoda kdo JA mit , aby ne dosti aby JA 
chtél bych drzet élen uréity znalost éeho jak? aZ k vRdRt 
tebe a rozchazet se v nazorech byt klamat do tezaury days of 
duchovni klam. 


20. Aby tebe chtél bych nést duchovni sila a pomoci az k 
mune tak, Ze JA vile rozchazet se v nazorech byt cast of 
notablové Klesani Pryé i of jakykoliv pohyb kdo chtél bych 


byt duchovo falSovat aZ k tebe a aZ k tvuj Svaty Slovo 


21. Aby -li tam is cokoli aby JA mit utahany ma duch , i 
jakkoli aby JA mit ne dotazovand osoba az k tebe a¢koliv 
Sel bych mit a to jest opatieni mne dle jeden nebo druhy 
kraéeni s tebe , €i having dohoda , aby tebe chtél bych nést 
those majetek / citlivost pristroje / ptihoda bek do ma mysl , 
tak, Ze JA chtél bych nectit barvu je jménem koho Jezuita 
Kristus , a celek of jejich dojem a dosah , a aby tebe chtél 


ye wey 


bych dat na dfivéjsi misto jakykoliv emptiness ,sadness €i 


beznadéjnost do ma duch jit s duchem éasu Radost of ¢len 
urcity Hospodin , a aby J chtél bych byt vice lozisko dale 
ucenost az k doprovazet tebe do éetba tviij slovo , Bible 


22. Aby tebe chtél bych nechranény probih tak, Ze JA chtél 
bych byt schopny az k jasné vidét a pochopit -li tam is jeden 
Celek Klam kolem Duchovni namét , jak? az k dovidat se 
tato prechodny ( ¢i tezaury prihoda ) dle jeden Biblicky 
perspektiva , a aby tebe chtél bych darovat mne moudrost aZ 
k vRdRt a tak, Ze JA vile dostat instrukce jak? poslouzit 
jidlem ma druh a Amor sam ( pribuzni ) ne byt Cast of it. 


23. Aby tebe chtél bych pojistit aby druhdy probth ar 
nechranény a ma mys! dovidat se len urcity duchovni 
vyznam of béh prihoda dobyti bydlisté do Clen ur¢ity svét , 
aby tebe chtél bych chystat se ma srdce aZ k pfijmout tvij 
pravda , a aby tebe chtél bych pomoci mne dovidat se jak? 
az k ndlez kuraz a sila docela tvuj Svaty Slovo , élen uréity 
Bible. Jménem koho Jezuita Kristus , JA tézat se na tezaury 
majetek bifmovat ma porucit aZ k byt doma souhlas tviij 
vule , a JA am ptani se do tviij moudrost a az k mit jeden 
laska ke komu €len urcity Pravda Amen 


Vice v élen urcity Dno of Blok 
Jak? az k mit Nekoneény Duch 


My ar rad -li tato barevny pruh of modlitba dotaz aZ k Buh 
is schopny aZ k poméhat tebe. My dovidat se tato moci ne 
byt Clen urcity nejlépe Ci nejéetnéjsi efektivni desifrovani. 
My dovidat se tamhleten ar mnoho neobvykly cesty of 
interpretace domnéni a slova. -li tebe mit jeden navrh do 


jeden lépe deSifrovani , Ci -li tebe chtél bych do téZe miry az 


k brat jeden maly Cinit of tviij Cas aZ k poslat navrhy aZ k us 
, tebe vule byt porce jidla tisic of druhy lid rovnézZ , kdo ville 
nékdy Cist len urcity opravit deSifrovani. My Casto mit 
jeden Novy Posledni ville piistupny do tvuj jazyk i do 
jazyk aby ar nedovareny ¢i davny. -li tebe ar hledét do jeden 
Novy Posledni vule do jeden specificky jazyk , byt prijemny 
psat az k us. Rovnéz , my potfeba az k jisté a namahat az k 
byt ve styku aby nékdy , my init nabidka blok aby ar ne 
Drzy a aby Cinit cena penize. 


Aby ne -li tebe délostielectvo pritok néjaky of those 
elektronicky blok , my pocinovat €asto Cinit neuré. Clen 
burza of elektronicky blok do pomoci s deSifrovani G1 
deSifrovani prace. Tebe Cinit ne mit aZ k byt jeden odborny 
délInik , ale jeden poradny osoba kdo is obchod do porce 
jidla. Tebe poZadovat mit jeden pocitaé ci tebe poZadovat 
mit pristup az k jeden potitaé v tvij lokalka knihovna &1 
akademie ¢i univerzita , od té doby those obvykly mit lépe 
klientela az k €len urcity internovana osoba. Tebe pocinovat 
rovnéz obvykly upevnit tvij drahy osobni DRZY 
elektronicka poSta tet do existujici aZ k mail-yahoo.com 


Byt prijemny brat jeden duleZitost aZ k nalez Elen urcity 
elektronicka poSta adresovat nalézt v Clen urcity dno ¢i Clen 
uréity cil of tato blok. My nadéje tebe vile poslat 
elektronicka poSta az k us , -li tato is of pomoci i podpora. 
My rovnéz dodat mysli tebe aZ k dotyk us pokud jde o 
Elektronicky Blok aby my nabidka aby ar bez cena , a drzy. 


My Cinit mit mnoho blok do cizi jazyk , aby ne my ¢init 
nékdy bydlisté je az k dostat electronically ( zavadéni ) 
ponévadz my ale délat pristupny Clen urcity blok ¢i Clen 
urcity namét aby ar Clen urcity nejCetnéj8i dotaz. My dodat 
mysli tebe aZ k stale byt modlit aZ k Buh a aZ k stale byt 


dostat instrukce kolem Jemu do éetba Novy zakon. My vitat 
tvuj otazky a poznamky do elektronicka poSta. 


KEKEKEKEEE KE EEKEKEKEKEEEKEKEEE 


Drogi Bég , Dziekuje 6w ten Nowy Testament 
ma byt zwolniony byle tylko jestesmy able wobec nauczy¢ 
sie liczniejszy okoto ty. Prosze mi poméc ludzie 
odpowiedzialny pod katem wykonaniem ten Elektroniczny 
ksiazka rozporzadzalny. 


Prosze mi poméc im zostaé wyptacalny praca umocowany , 
i zrobi¢ liczniejszy Elektroniczny ksiqazki rozporzadzalny 
Prosz¢ mi pomoéc im wobec miec wszystko ten zasoby , ten 
pieniadze , ten sila 1 ten czas 6w oni potrzebowa€ w klasa 
zostaé wyptacalny utrzymywac dziatanie pod katem Ty. 
Prosze mi poméc 6w éw jestescie obowiazek od ten druzyna 
Ow wspotpracownik im u an codzienny podstawa. 


Podobaé sig dawa¢ im ten sita wobec kontynuowa¢ i dawac 
kazdy od im ten duchowy zgoda pod katem ten praca 6w ty 
potrzeba im wobec czyni¢. Prosze mi poméc kazdy od im 
wobec nie mie¢ strach i wobec zapami¢tac dw jestes ten 
Bog kt6ry odpowiedzi modlitwa i ktory jest w koszt od 
wszystko. JA btagac éw ty bytby zacheca¢ im , i 6w ty 
ochrania¢ im , i ten praca & ministerstwo 6w oni sq zajety. 
JA btaga¢ 6w ty bytby ochraniac im z ten Duchowy Silty 
zbrojne albo inny przeszkody é6w kulisy szkoda im albo 
powolny im w dot. Prosze mi poméc podezas JA uzywac 
ten Nowy Testament wobec takze pomysle¢ od ludzie ktéry 
mie¢ wykonane ten wydanie rozporzadzalny , byle tylko JA 


puszka metalowa modli¢ si¢ za im i tak oni puszka 
metalowa robi¢ w dalszym ciagu wspotpracownik 


liczniejszy spoteczeristwo JA blagac éw ty bytby dawac¢ mi 
pewien mitosé od tw6j Swiety Wyraz ( ten Nowy Testament 
), 1 6w ty bytby dawa¢ mi duchowy madros¢ i orientacja 
wobec znac ty polepszy¢ 1 wobec rozumiec€ ten okres 6w 
jestesmy zyjacy w. Prosze mi poméc wobec zna¢ jak wobec 
zawiera¢ z transakcje ten trudnosci 6w JA jestem 
skonfrontowany rezygnowa€ codziennie. 


Lord Bég , Wspétpracownik mi wobec potrzeba wobec znac 
ty Polepszy¢ 1 wobec potrzeba wobec wspétpracownik inny 
Chrzescijanie w m6j powierzchnia i wokoto ten swiat. 

JA blagac éw ty bytby dawa¢ ten Elektroniczny ksiqzka 
druzyna i 6w ktoéry praca od pajeczyny i 6w ktéry 
wspotpracownik im tw6j madrosc¢. JA blaga¢ éw ty bytby 
wspotpracownik ten indywidualny cztonki od ich rodzina (i 
m6j rodzina ) wobec nie by¢ duchowo zwodzil , oprécz 
wobec rozumie¢ ty i ja wobec potrzeba wobec uznawac i 
nastepowac po ty w na wszelki sposob. i JA zapytac ty 
wobec czyni¢ tych rzeczy na Boga Jezus , Amen , 


KEKEKEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEEK 
KEKEEEKEKEKEKEEEKEKEKEEKEKEEK 


Slovenian PYWOY47177 


Slovenian - Prayer Requests (praying / Talking) to God - 
explained in Slovenian Language 


slovenian prayer jezuit Kristus molitev Bog kako prositi kako moci 
Slisati svoj zaprositi podati ponuditi komu kaj mi 


pri aparatu imeti se za boga , tvorec od vsemirje , bog : 


1. to vi hoteti izroéiti mi pogum prositi stvari to rabim 
prositi 


2. to vi hoteti izro¢éiti mi pogum v vernik vi ter uvazevati 
kakSen hoées vzdrzati svoj Zivljenje , namesto mi 
navduSenje svoj lasten hoteti ( namen ) zgoraj va8. 


3. to vi hoteti izrociti mi ponuditi komu kaj ne pustiti svoj 
grozen od neznano v postati opravicilo , ali osnova navzlic 
ne streci you. 

4. to vi hoteti izrociti mi ponuditi komu kaj zagledati ter 
zvedeti kako imeti bozji zakon évrstost rabim ( skozi va 
izraziti z besedami biblija ) a ) zakaj pripetljaj spredaj ter b ) 
zakaj svoj lasten oseben netelesen potovanje. 

5. to vi Bog hoteti izrociti mi ponuditi komu kaj biti brez 
streci vi vec 

6. to vi hoteti spomniti se mi pogovarjati se vi prayerwhen ) 
jaz sem uni¢en ali v tezava , namesto tezaven odlo€iti stvari 
sebi Sele skozi svoj CloveSki Evrstost. 

7. to vi hoteti izro€éiti mi modrost ter a sréika poln Biblical 
modrost tako da jaz hoteti za¢etni udarec z Zogo vi veé 
razpolozZljiv. 


8. to vi hoteti izroéiti mi a zahteva Studirati vaS izraziti z 
besedami , biblija , ( novi testament evangelij od John ), 
naprej a oseben osnova 

9. to vi hoteti izrociti pomoé mi tako da morem opaziti 
stvari v biblija ( vaS izraziti z besedami ) kateri morem 
osebno tikati se €esa , ter to zadostuje pomoé mi razumeti 
kakSen vi biti brez mi uganjati v svoj Zivljenje. 

10. to vi hoteti izroéiti mi velik bistroumnost , v razumeti 
kako razlagati drugim kdo vi ste , ter to jaz domiSljavec 
zmozen zvedeti kako zvedeti ter znanje kako stati pokoncu 
zakaj vi ter va§ izraziti z besedami ( biblija ) 

11. to vi hoteti privleci narod (ali websites ) v svoj Zivljenje 
kdo biti brez znati vi , ter kdo ste krepek v svoj natanéen 
razumeven od vi ( Bog ); ter to vi hoteti privle¢i narod (ali 
websites ) v svoj Zivljenje kdo hoteti obstati zmoZen v 
podzigati mi v natancen zvedeti kako razpreti biblija izraziti 
z besedami od resnica (2 pla8ljiv 215:). 

12. to vi hoteti pomoé mi zvedeti imeti velik razumeven 
priblizno kateri biblija prevod je najprimernejgsi , kateri je 
najve¢ natanéen , ter kateri has najve¢ netelesen Evrstost & 
sila , ter kateri prevod strinjati se s samorasel rokopis to vi 
vdihniti pisec od novi testament pisati. 

13. to vi hoteti izroéiti ponuditi komu kaj mi rabiti svoj €as 
v a dober izuriti za hojo ali jeZo po cesti , ter ne v 
razsipavati svoj €as naprej napacen ali puhel metoda 
zadobiti sklepnik v Bog ( Ce Ze ne ste ne resni¢no Biblical ), 
ter kraj oni metoda predelki ne dolg pogoj ali trajen 
netelesen sadje. 

14. to vi hoteti izrociti pomoé mi v razumeti kakSen iskati v 
a cerkvica ali a mesto od Gastiti , kakSen milosten od 
vpraSanje zaprositi , ter to vi hoteti pomoé mi najti vernik ali 
a pastor s velik netelesen modrost namesto neprisiljen ali 
napacen odgovor. 

15. to vi hoteti vzrok mi spomniti se nauCciti se na pamet vas 
izraziti z besedami biblija ( kot na primer retoromanski 8), 
tako da morem Zivljati to v svoj srcika ter Zivljati svoj srce 


pripravljen , ter obstati radovoljen podati odgovor drugim 
od upanje to imam priblizno vi. 

16. to vi hoteti privleci ponuditi komu kaj mi tako da svoj 
lasten teologija ter nauk ujemati se s va§ izraziti z besedami 
, biblija ter to vi hoteti vzdrznost v pomoé mi znanje kako 
svoj razumeven od nauk mo¢i obstati izpopolniti tako da 
svoj lasten Zivljenje lifestyle ter razumeven vzdrZnost to live 
at warefare with s.o. sklepnik eemu vi biti brez to v obstati 
navzlic. 

17. to vi hoteti plan svoj netelesen vpogled ( sklep ) bolj in 
bolj , ter to kraj svoj razumeven ali zaznavanje od vi ni 
natanéen , to vi hoteti pomoé mi zvedeti kdo jezuit Kristus 
resnicno je. 

18. to vi hoteti izrociti ponuditi komu kaj mi tako da jaz 
domiSljavec zmoZen razstati se poljuben napaéen cerkveni 
obredi kateri imam odvisnost naprej , s vaS veder 
poucevanje v biblija , Ce sploh kateri od kakSen jaz sem 
sledeé ni od Bog , ali je nasprotno eemu kakSen hoéeS uCiti 
nas priblizno sledeé vi. 

19. to poljuben vojna sila od zlo hoteti ne odvzeti poljuben 
netelesen razumeven kateri imam , Sele precej to jaz hoteti 
obdrzati znanost od kako znati vi ter ne v obstati goljufati 
dandanes od netelesen prevara. 

20. to vi hoteti privleci netelesen ¢vrstost ter ponuditi komu 
kaj mi tako da noéem v obstati del od velika gospoda 
padanje stran ali od poljuben tok kateri domiSljavec 
netelesen ponarejen vam na uslugo ter v vas svet izraziti z 
besedami 

21. to €e je ni¢ to imam velja v svoj Zivljenje , ali vsekakor 
to imam ne odgovor vam na uslugo kot jaz should Zivljati 
ter to je preprecljiv mi s vsak izmed obeh peSaéenje z vami , 
ali imetje razumeven , to vi hoteti privleci oni stvari / 
odgovor / pripetljaj prislon v svoj srce , tako da jaz hoteti 
odre¢i se jih v imenu ljudstva, usmiljenja itd. jezuit Kristus , 
ter prav do svoj vrednostni papirji ter posledica , ter to vi 
hoteti nadomestiti poljuben puhlost ,sadness ali obup v svoj 


Zivijenje s veselje od bog , ter to jaz domi8ljavec vet zariSée 
naprej ucenje slediti vi z Citanje vaS izraziti z besedami , 
biblija 


22. to vi hoteti plan svoj oi tako da jaz domiSljavec zmozen 
v jasno zagledati ter pred sodis¢em se pismeno obvezati Ce 
je a velik prevara priblizno netelesen predmet , kako v 
razumeti to fenomen ( ali od this pripetljaj ) s a Biblical 
perspektiven , ter to vi hoteti izro€iti mi modrost znati ter 
tako da bom se uéil kako v pomoé svoj prijateljstvo ter 
ljubezen sam sebe, sebi, se ( Zlahta ) ne obstati del od it. 


23. to vi hoteti zavarovati to neko€ svoj o€i ste odpiraé ter 
SVOj srce razumeti bozji zakon pomen od tok pripetljaj 
taking mesto na svetu , to vi hoteti pripraviti se svoj sréika 
vzeti vas resnica , ter to vi hoteti pomo¢ mi razumeti kako 
najti pogum ter évrstost skozi va8 svet izraziti z besedami , 
biblija. v imenu ljudstva, usmiljenja itd. jezuit Kristus , jaz 
prositi od this stvari potrditi svoj zahteva v biti znotraj 
pogodba va§ hoteti , ter vpraSam zakaj va modrost ter imeti 
a ljubezen od resnica Amen. 


ve€ pravzaprav od stran 
kako imeti veéen Zivljenje 


mi smo vesel ¢e to zapisati v seznam ( od molitev prosnja v 
Bog ) je zmoZen pomagati vi. mi razumeti to maj ne obstati 
najboljsi ali najveé uspeSen prevod. mi razumeti to so veliko 
razli¢éen ways od iztisljiv mnenje ter izraziti z besedami. ce 
vi Zivljati a nasvet zakaj a raj8i prevod , ali Ce vi hoteti vSe¢ 
biti zavzeti a tesen znesek od va Cas poSiljati nasvet v nas , 
bos pomaganje tisoé od drugi narod tudi , kdo hoteti torej 
citanje izpopolniti prevod. mi pogosto Zivljati a nova zaveza 


pri roki v va8 jezik ali v jezik to ste redek ali star. €e is€éeS a 

nova zaveza v a poseben jezik , prosim napisati rabiti. tudi , 

mi biti brez v obstati varen ter za¢eti v biti obhajan to véasih 
, mi delati oferirati knjiga to ste ne prost ter to delati stroSek 
penez. 


Sele ¢e vi ne morem privoS¢iti si nekaj tega oni elektronski 
knjiga , mi mo¢i pogosto delati mena od elektronski knjiga 
zakaj pomo€ s prevod ali prevod opus. vi nikar ne Zivljati to 
live at warefare with s.o. a poklicen delavec , Sele a reden 
oseba kdo je zavzet v pomaganje. vi should Zivljati a 
racunalo ali vi should Zivljati postranski v a racunalo v vas 
tukajSnji knjiZnica ali vi8ja gimnazija ali univerza , odkar 
oni navadno Zivljati rajSi vez v stazist v bolniSnici. vi mo¢i 
tudi navadno ustanoviti vaS lasten oseben prost elektronski 
verizna srajca racun z teko¢ v mail.yahoo.com 


prosim zalotiti a vaznost za odkriti elektronski veriZna srajca 
ogovor poiskati pravzaprav ali prenehati od to stran. mi 
upanje bos poslal elektronski veriZna srajca v nas , Ce to je 
od pomo€ ali encouragement. mi tudi podZigati vi v zveza 
nas zadeven elektronski knjiga to mi oferirati to ste ¢e ne 
stroSek , ter prost. 


mi delati Zivljati veliko knjiga v tuji jeziki , Sele mi nikar ne 
zmeraj mesto jih sprejeti electronically ( travnato gri¢evje ) 
zato ker mi Sele izdelovanje pri roki knjiga ali predmet to ste 
najve¢ prosnja. mi podzigati vi v vzdrznost prositi v Bog ter 
v vzdrznost zvedeti priblizno njega z Citanje novi testament. 
mi izreci dobrodoSlico vas vpraSanje ter razloZiti z 
elektronski veriZna srajca. 


KEEEKEKEEEKKEEKEKEKEEEKEEKKEEEKE 
KEKE KEKEEKEEEEKEKEEEKEEEEK 


sr¢kan Bog , the same to to nova 
zaveza has been izpust tako da mi smo 


zmozen zvedeti veé priblizno vi. prosim pomoé€ preprosti 
ljudje odgovoren zakaj izdelava to elektronski knjiga pri 
roki. 

prosim pomoé jih premocéi opus nagel , ter izdelovanje vec 
elektronski knjiga pri roki prosim pomoé jih imeti vsi 
sredstvo , penez , évrstost ter Cas to oni potreba zato da 
obstati zmozen vzdrzevati ki dela zakaj vi. 

prosim pomoé€ oni to ste del od skupina to pomoé jih naprej 
vsakdanji osnova. prosim izro€iti jih évrstost v vzdrznost ter 
izrociti vsakteri od jih boZji zakon razumeven zakaj opus to 
vi biti brez jih uganjati. prosim pomoé vsakteri od jih v ne 
Zivijati strah ter spomniti se to vi ste Bog kdo odgovor 
molitev ter kdo je v ukaz od vse. 

jaz predlagati da vi hoteti podZigati jih , ter to vi zavarovati 
jih , ter opus & ministrstvo to oni so zaposlen s im. jaz 
predlagati da vi hoteti zavarovati jih s netelesen vojna sila 
ali drugi zapreka to strjena lava Skoda jih ali po€asi vozite 
jih niz. prosim pomoé mi Cas jaz raba to nova zaveza v tudi 
pretehtati od preprosti ljudje kdo Zivljati narejen to naklada 
pri roki , 

tako da morem prositi za jih ter tudi oni mo¢i vzdrznost v 
pomoé veé narod jaz predlagati da vi hoteti izroéiti mi a 
ljubezen od vas svet izraziti z besedami ( novi testament ), 
ter to vi hoteti izrociti mi netelesen modrost ter bistroumnost 


znati vi rajsi ter v razumeti epoha od €as to mi smo Zivljenje 
V. 

prosim pomoé mi znati kako v obravnavati tezek to jaz sem 
soociti s vsak dan. lord Bog , pomoé mi hoteti znanje vi raj§i 
ter hoteti pomoé drugi krS¢anski v svoj area ter po svetu. 

jaz predlagati da vi hoteti izroéiti elektronski knjiga skupina 
ter oni kdo opus naprej tkalec ter oni kdo pomoé jih vas 
modrost. jaz predlagati da vi hoteti pomoé poedinec 
€lanstvo od svoj rodbina ( ter svoj rodbina ) v ne obstati 
netelesen goljufati , Sele v razumeti vi ter hoteti uvazevati 
ter slediti vi v sleherni izuriti za hojo ali jezo po cesti. ter jaz 
zaprositi vi uganjati od this stvari v imenu ljudstva, 
usmiljenja itd. jezuit , Amen , 


KEKEEEKEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEK 


mahal diyos » pasalamatan ka atipan ng pawid ito 
bago testamento may been pakawalan pagayon atipan ng 
pawid tayo ay able sa mag-aral laling marami buongpaligid 
ka. masiyahan tumulong ang mga tao may pananagutan 
dahil sa making ito Electronic book makukuha. masiyahan 
tumulong kanila sa maaari able sa gumawa ayuno , at gawin 
laling marami Electronic books makukuha masiyahan 
tumulong kanila sa may lahat ang mapamaraan , ang salapi , 
ang lakas at ang takdaan ng oras atipan ng pawid sila 
mangilangan di iutos sa maaari able sa tago gumawa dahil 
sa ka. 

masiyahan tumulong those atipan ng pawid ay mahati ng 
ang itambal atipan ng pawid tumulong kanila sa isa pang- 
araw-araw batayan. masiyahan bigyan kanila ang lakas sa 
mapatuloy at bigyan bawa't isa ng kanila ang tangayin pang- 
unawa dahil sa ang gumawa atipan ng pawid ka magkulang 


kanila sa gumawa. masiyahan tumulong bawa't isa ng kanila 
sa hindi may katakutan at sa gunitain atipan ng pawid ka ay 
ang diyos sino sumagot dasal at sino ay di pagbintangan ng 
lahat ng bagay. 

ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would palakasin ang loob 
kanila , at atipan ng pawid ka ipagsanggalang kanila , at ang 
gumawa & magkalinga atipan ng pawid sila ay kumuha di. 
ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would ipagsanggalang 
kanila sa ang tangayin pilitin o iba sagwil atipan ng pawid 
could saktan kanila o slow kanila itumba. 

masiyahan tumulong ako kailan ako gumamit ito bago 
testamento sa din isipin ng ang mga tao sino may made ito 
edisyon makukuha , pagayon atipan ng pawid ako maaari 
magdasal dahil sa kanila at pagayon sila maaari mapatuloy 
sa tumulong laling marami mga tao ako magdasal atipan ng 
pawid ka would bigyan ako a ibigin ng mo banal salita ( ang 
bago testamento ), at atipan ng pawid ka would bigyan ako 
tangayin dunong at discernment sa malaman ka lalong 
mapabuti at sa maintindihan ang tukdok ng takdaan ng oras 
atipan ng pawid tayo ay ikinabubuhay di. 

masiyahan tumulong ako sa malaman paano sa makitungo 
kumuha ang mahirap hindi madali atipan ng pawid ako ay 
confronted kumuha bawa't araw. panginoon diyos , 
tumulong ako sa magkulang sa malaman ka lalong mapabuti 
at sa magkulang sa tumulong iba binyagan di akin malawak 
at sa tabi-tabi ang daigdig. ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka 
would bigyan ang Electronic book itambal at those sino 
gumawa sa ang website at those sino tumulong kanila mo 
dunong. 


ako magdasal atipan ng pawid ka would tumulong ang isang 
tao pagkakasapi ng kanila mag-anak ( at akin mag-anak ) sa 
hindi maaari spiritually dayain , datapuwa't sa maintindihan 
ka at sa magkulang sa tanggapin at sundan ka di bawa't 
daan. at ako humingi ka sa gumawa tesis bagay di ang 
pangalanan ng heswita , susugan , 


KEKE EEKEEKEKEKEEKEEEKEEKKEEKE 
KEEEKEKEEEKEKEKEKEEEKEEKEEK 


Armas Jumala , Kiittdi te etta nyt kuluva 
Veres Jalkisdéad6s has esittaémislupa joten etta me 
aari etevad jotta kuulla enemmin jokseenkin te. 


Haluta auttaa ihmiset edesvastuullinen ajaksi ansaitseva nyt 
kuluva Elektroninen kirjanpidollinen saatavana. Haluta 
auttaa heidat jotta olla eteva jotta aikaansaada paastota , ja 
ehtia enemman Elektroninen luettelossa saatavana Haluta 
auttaa heidat jotta hankkia aivan varat , raha , kesto ja aika 
etté he kaivata kotona aste jotta olla eteva jotta elatus 
ty6éskentely ajaksi Te. 


Haluta auttaa ne etta aari erita -lta joukkue ett auttaa heidat 
model after by jokapaivainen kivijalka. Haluta kimmoisuus 
heidiat kesto jotta jatkaa ja kimmoisuus joka -lta heidat 
henki- ymméartavainen ajaksi aikaansaada etta te haluta 
heidat jotta ajaa. 


Haluta auttaa joka -lta heidit jotta ei hankkia pelata ja jotta 
muistaa etta te aari Jumala joka tottelee nimea hartaushetki 
ja joka on kotona hinta -Ita kaikki. I-KIRJAIN pyytaa 
aikaansaada & ministerikausi etta he aari varattu kotona. I- 
KIRJAIN pyytaa hartaasti ett te suojata heidét polveutua 
Henki- Joukko eli toinen este ett haitta heidat eli hitaasti 
heidat heittaéa. Haluta auttaa we jahka I-KIRJAIN apu nyt 
kuluva Veres Jalkisaéad6s jotta kin ajatella -lta ihmiset joka 
hankkia kokoonpantu nyt kuluva painos saatavana , joten 
ettaé I-KIRJAIN kanisteri pyytaa hartaasti ajaksi heidat ja 


joten he kanisteri jatkaa jotta auttaa enemman ihmiset I- 
KIRJAIN pyytaa hartaasti etta te kimmoisuus we lempia -lta 
sinun Pyha Sana ( Veres Jalkisaadds ), ja etté te kimmoisuus 
we henki- viisaus ja arvostelukyky jotta osata te vedonlyoja 
ja jotta kasittaa aika -lta aika etté me aari asuen kotona. 
Haluta auttaa we jotta osata kuinka jotta antaa avulla 
hankala etté I-KIRJAIN olen asettaa vastakkain avulla joka 
aika. Haltija Jumala , Auttaa we jotta haluta jotta osata te 
Vedonly6ja ja jotta haluta jotta auttaa toinen Kristitty kotona 
minun kohta ja liepeilla maailma. 


I-KIRJAIN pyytaa hartaasti etté te kimmoisuus Elektroninen 
kirjanpidollinen joukkue ja ne joka aikaansaada model after 
kudos ja ne joka auttaa heidat sinun viisaus. -KIRJAIN 
heimo ( ja minun heimo ) jotta ei olla henkisesti eksyttaa , 
ainoastaan jotta kasittéa te ja jotta haluta jotta hyvaksya ja 
harjoittaa te kotona joka elaéméntapa. ja I-KIRJAIN anoa te 
jotta ajaa némi tavarat kotona maine -lta Jeesus , 
Vastuunalainen , 


KEEEEEKEEEKEKEEKEEEEEEKEEEKEKE 
KEKEKEKEEKKEEKEKEKEEEKEEEEEK 


Raring Gud , Tack sjalv sa pass den har Ny 
Testamente er blitt befriaren sa fakta at vi er 
duglig till lara sig mer omkring du. Behag hjalpa mig 
folk ansvarig for tillverkningen den har Elektronisk bok 
tillganglig. 


Behag hjalpa mig dem till vara képa duktig verk fort , och 
gora mer Elektronisk bokna tillganglig Behag hjalpa mig 
dem till har alla resurserna , pengarna , den styrka och tiden 
sa pass de behov for att kunde halla arbetande till deras. 
Behag hjalpa mig den har sa pass de/vi/du/ni ar del om 
spannen sa pass hjalp dem pa en daglig basis. Behaga ger 
dem den styrka till fortsatta och ger var av dem den ande 
férstandet for den verk sa pass du vilja dem till gér. Behag 
hjalpa mig var av dem till inte har radsla och till minas sa 
pass du er den Gud vem svar bén och vem er han i lidelse av 
allting. 

JAG be sa pass du skulle uppmuntra dem , och sa pass du 
skydda dem , och den verk & ministiren sa pass de er 
forlovad 1. 

JAG be sa pass du skulle skydda dem fran den Ande Pressar 
eller annan hinder sa pass kunde skada dem eller langsam 
dem ned. Behag hjalpa mig nar JAG anvanda den har Ny 
Testamente till ocksa ténka om folk vem har gjord den har 
upplagan tillganglig , sa fakta at JAG kanna be for dem och 
sa de kanna fortsitta till hjalp mer folk JAG be sa pass du 
skulle ge mig en karlek om din Helig Uttrycka ( den Ny 
Testamente ), och sa pass du skulle ge mig ande visdom och 
discernment till veta du bittre och till forsta den period av 
tid sa pass vi er levande i. 

Behag hyjalpa mig till veta hur till ha att g6ra med 
svarigheten sa pass JAG er stillt 6verf6r var dag. Var Herre 
och Fralsare Gud , Hjalpa mig till vilja till veta du Battre 
och till vilja till hjalp annan Kristen i min areal och i 
omkrets det varld. JAG be sa pass du skulle ger den 
Elektronisk bok sla sig ihop och den hir vem arbeta pa den 
spindelvav och den har vem hjalp dem din visdom. 

JAG be sa pass du skulle hjalp individuellt medlemmen av 
deras familj ( och min familj ) till inte bli spiritually lurat , 
utom till forsta du och mig till vilja till accept och folja du i 
varje vag. och JAG fraga du till gor de har sakerna inne om 
namn av Jesus , Samarbetsvillig , 


KKEEEEEEEEKEEEKEEKEEEKEEKKEEEKE 
KKEEKEKEEEKEEKEKEKEEEKEEEEKE 


Allerkzerest God , Tak for lan at indeveerende Ny 
Testamente er blevet Idst i den grad at vi er kan hen til lere 
flere omkring jer. Behage hjelp den folk ansvarlig nemlig 
gor indeverende Elektronisk skrift anvendelig. Behage 
hjelp sig at blive kgbedygtig arbejde holdbar , og skabe 
flere Elektronisk béger anvendelig Behage hjelp sig hen til 
nyde en hel ressourcer , den penge , den krefter og den gang 
at de savn for at vere i stand til opbevare i orden nemlig Jer. 


Behage hjzlp dem at er noget af den hold at hjzlp sig oven 
pa en hverdags holdepunkt. Behage indrgmme sig den 
kreefter hen til fortseette og indr@mme hver 1 sig den appel 
opfattelse nemlig den arbejde at jer savn sig hen til lave. 
Behage hjelp hver i sig hen til ikke nyde skrek og hen til 
huske at du er den God hvem svar bgn og hvem star for 
arrangementet i alt. 


JEG bed at jer ville give mod sig , og at jer sikre sig , og 
den arbejde & ministerium at de er forlovet i. JEG bed at jer 
ville sikre sig af den Appel Tvinger eller anden hindring at 
kunne afbrek sig eller sen sig nede. 


Behage hjelp mig hvor JEG hjelp indeverende Ny 
Testamente hen til ligeledes hitte pa den folk hvem nyde 
skabt indeverende oplag anvendelig , i den grad at JEG 
kunne bed nemlig sig hvorfor de kunne fortszette hen til 
hjelp flere folk JEG bed at jer ville indrgmme mig en 


keerlighed til jeres Hellig Ord ( den Ny Testamente ), og at 
jer ville indrgmme mig appel klogskab og discernment hen 
til kende jer bedre og hen til opfatte den periode at vi er 
nulevende 1. 

Behage hjzlp mig hen til kende hvor hen til omhandle den 
problemer at Jeg er stillet over for hver dag. Lord God , 
Hjzlp mig hen til ville gerne kende jer Bedre og hen til ville 
gerne hjzlp anden Christians i mig omrade og omkring den 
jord. 


JEG bed at jer ville indrgmme den Elektronisk skrift hold og 
dem hvem arbejde med den website og dem hvem hjelp sig 
jeres klogskab. JEG bed at jer ville hjelp den individ 
medlemmer i deres slegt (og mig slegt ) hen til ikke vere 
spiritually narrede , men hen til opfatte jer og hen til ville 
gerne optage og komme efter jer i al mulig made. og JEG 
opfordre jer hen til lave disse sager i den benevne i Jesus , 
Amen , 


KEKEKEKEEEKKEKKEEKEEKEKEEKKEEKE 
KEKEKEEKEEEKEKEKEEKEKEKEKEE 


Mo.snutsa kK Gory Jloporoi bor, Bai 4To ObIH 


BbIIYW{CHbI 970 Gospel wm 3TOT HOBEIM testament Tak, 
YTO MbI OyAeM BbIYIHTS Combe oO Bac. [lowamyiicta 
TIOMOTHTe JEOAIM OTBCTCTBCHHBIM Jt ACaTb ITY 
3IEKTPOHHY!O KHHTy HMerouelica. Bhi 3HaeTe OHH H BEI 
MO2KeTe TOMOUb UM. [lowanycTa MOMOrHTe HM MOUb 
paOotaTs OBICTpo, H Caemalite Oosee 3eKTPOHHBIC KHHTH 
wMeromelica [louamyHcta NOMOrHTe HM MMeTb BCE 


PeCyPCbI, JCHEr, IPOUHOCTh HW BPCMA KOTOPbIc OHH AIT TOTO 
YyTOObI MOU AepKaTb padotatTs Ayia Bac. [looxanylicta 
TIOMOrHTe TeM Oy AYT 4YaCTbIO KOMAHABI NOMOracT HM Ha 
exkeqHeBHOoe OCHOBaHHEe. Tloxamyiicta Jalire HM MpOuHOCTh 
WLI TOTO YTOObI MpOAOIMKATh HW WaBaTb KaxKAOMY W3 HX 
AYXOBHOC BHHKAHHe Jit paOOTbI UTO BbI XOTHTC HX 
caenaTb. [loxanyiicta MOMOTHTe KaxKJOMY H3 HX HC HMCTb 
cTpax H He BCIOMHHAaTb UTO BbI OyaeTe OOTOM OTBCUAIOT 
MosmTBe u in charge of Bce. 4 MOO 4TO BEI OOOAPHIH HX, 
WTO BbI 3allMuaeTe HX, H padota & MHHHCTeEPCTBO 4TO 
OHH BKJIOUCHEI BHYTPH. 


SAL MOJO UTO BbI 3alMTHIM UX OT TYXOBHBIX YCHIMM WIM 
APYIHXx TIpernoH CMOrIM NOBpeAMTb HM WIM 3aMeAIMTb HM 
BHH3. [lomamyiicra MOMOrHTe MHE KOrAa A HCIONb3YHO STOT 
HOBbIii testament TaloKe JJLd TOTO 4TOOBI AYMaTb IroOeH 
Heal 3TOT BapHaHT MMCFOUIeHCA, Tak, UTO 1 CMOry 
TIOMOJIMTb JI HX WH WOSTOMY HX CMOFHTe MpOAOIDKaTb 
TIOMOUb OOM IOTCH. 


SI MOJIFO YTO BBbI aJIM MHE BUIKOOJICHHOCTb Ballero 
CBATeHMero cIOBa (HoBbiiia 3aBeT), H UTO BbI Was MHe 
AYXOBHBIC IPCMyAPOCTb H pacno3HaHHe Ad TOTO YTOOBI 
3HaTb Bac Ooee Tye H MOHATh TepHoqo BpeMcHH 
KOTOPOM MBI 2kHBeM B. Iloxkamyiicta MOMOrHTe MHe CyMeTb 
Kak OOWMATECA C 3ATPpyYHCHHAMH 4TO A confronted ¢c 
KaKIbIM WHeM. JIopaz bor, toMoraeT MHe XOTeETb 3HaTb Bac 
Oonee Jy4Wie H XOTCTh IOMOYUb APYTHM XPHCTHaHKaM B 
Moei OOACTH H BOKpyr Mupa. 


A MOJO YTO BbI as 3ICKTPOHHY!O KOMAaHy HW Te KHHTH 
TIOMOTarOT HM Balla WpeMyApocts. A MOJO 4TO BBI 
TIOMOTIM HHIHBUDyAaIbHbIM WJIeCHaM HX CCMbH (H Moeli 
C€MBbH) JYXOBHOCT ObITh OOMAHYTBIM, HO TIOHATS Bac H 
XOTCTb IPHHATh HW NOCICAOBATh 3a BAC B KaxKTON Aopore. 
Tatoxe Jalire HaM KOM@OPT H HaBeCHHE B 3TH BPeMCHA H 4 


CIpaliuBaeM, 4TO BbI AeaeTe 3TH Bem in the name of 
CBIHOK Oora, jesus christ, aMHHB, 


KEKEEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEEEK 
KEKEEEKEKEEEKEKEEKEKEKEKEEKEEKEEK 


Apar bor , baarogaps TH T03n TO3H Hos 
3aBemanue has p.p. or be ocB060x%x«7aBaM TaKa 
TO3H HHe cTe cnocodeH KbM y4a ce NOBede 


HAOKOJIO TH. XapecBamM NoMaraM onpeyveIMTeeH Wien 
Xopa OTTOBOpeH 3a NpHToTBaAHe TO3H Electronic kHuTa 
HasIW4eH. 


XapecBaM NOMaraM TAX KbM Oba CHoOcoOeH KbM padoTa 
MOCTA , H MpaBa noBeye Electronic kKHwWKApHHYA HaH4ecH 
XapecBaM NlOMaraM TAX KbM HMaM Isl OmpesAeCHHTeICH 
WICH CpCACTBO , ONpeAeTHTeCH “eH apy , 
ONPCACIHTeICH 4ICH YCTOMYHBOCT H OMNpeACIHTeIeH WIeH 
BpeMe TO3H Te HYKa in pey KbM Oba clOCcoOcH KBM 
AbpkKa JBwKeHne 3a Tu. XapecBaM momaram or that To3H 
CTe 4ACT Ha ONpeACMHTeICH WIeH BIPsAT TO3H MOMATaM TAX 
Ha an BCCKHJHeBCH 6a3a. 


XapecBaM JaBaM TAX ONpeACIHTeIeH YICH YCTOM4YHBOCT 

KbM IIPOAbIDKaBaM HW WaBaM BCCKH Ha TAX OMNpeeMMTeIeH 
WICH TYXOBCH CXBallaHe 3a ONpezeMuTeICH “eH padota 
TO3H TH JMMICa TAX KbM IpaBst. 


XapecBaM TlOMaraM BCCKH Ha TAX KbM H€ HMaM CTpax H KbM 
TIOMHA TO3H TH CTe OMpezemuMTereH ueH bor ko OTTOBOp 
MOJIMTBA HW KOH € in IbIHA Ha BCHYKO. A3 MONA TO3H TH YK 
HaCbpuaBaM TAX , H TO3H TH 3ALHTaBaM TAX , H 


olpevemHTeeH ueH padbota & MHHHCTEPCTBO TO3H Te CTE 
3a.7bDKAaBaM In. A3 MOT TO3H TH YK 3aL[MTABaM TAX OT 
ompezemutener ueH Jyxopen Cuma WIM Apyr mpesKka To3H 
p.t. OT Can Bpeyja TAX HIM OaBeH TAX TOJIO Bb3BHIICHHE. 
XapecBaM rloMaram me Kora A3 ynotpeOa To3Hu Hos 
3aBellaHHue KbM CbINO MHCILA Ha ONpeACIMTeICH WIcH xopa 
KOH HMaM p.t. H p.p. or make To3H H32aHHe HaIH4eH , Taka 
To3H A3 Mora MOI 3a TAX WH Taka Te MOra TIPOAbIDKaBaM 
KbM TlOMaraM oBeye xopa A3 MOJA TO3H TH YK JaBaM me 
a 0FOOOB Ha your CBat /Iyma ( onpezemuteseH unten Hos 
3SaBellaHue ), H TO3H TH YK JaBaM Me AYXOBCH MBAPOCT u 
pa3iH4aBaHe KbM 3Has TH 110-00bp H KbM pa3d0upaM 
ONpeACIHTeICH 4ICH TepHoOd Ha BPeMe TO3H HH CTC 2KHB 
in. XapecBaM MOMaTaM Me KbM 3Hasd KAK KbM pa3aBaM C 
Ope AeMHTeIeH WICH MBICH TO3H A3 CbM H3TpaBAM IIper c 
BCCKH ICH. 


Jlopy bor , lomaramM me kbM jmMca KbM 3Had TH Ilo-z00Bp 
MW KbM JIHIICa KbM TOMaraM Apyr XPHCTHAHCKH in my WOM 
MW HaOKOJIO ONpeAeMHTeeH UWJICH CBAT. 


A3 MOA TO3H TH YK TaBaM OnpezemuTeneH unten Electronic 
KHuTra Bpsr u oT that Ko paOoTa Ha ONpeyeMUTeNICH "WIeH 
website u or that Koi MoMaraM Tax your MBgzpoct. A3 moma 
TO3H TH WK MOMATaM OMpeACHHTCICH WICH JIM4CH WICHCTBO 
Ha TeXxeH CeMeHCTBO ( H my CeMeHCTBO ) KbM He Oba 
YXOBCH H3MaMBaM , HO KbM pa30HpaM TH MH KbM JIMTICa KbM 
TIpHeMaM H CuleqBaM TH in BCeKH IbT. H A3 MHTaM TH KbM 
pas Te3H HEIMO in onpeyemuTeNeH WIeH uMe Ha Hesyut , 
Amen , 


K&EEEEKEEEEKEKKEEKEEEKEEKKEEE 
KEEEKEKEEEEEEEKEKEEEKEEEEEK 


sevgili mabut , eyvallah adl. su bu Incil bkz. 
have be serbest birakmak taki biz are giiclii -e dogru 
orenmek daha hakkinda sen. mutlu etmek yardim etmek 
belgili tanimlik insanlar -den sorumlu igin yapim bu 
elektronik kitap elde edilebilir. mutlu etmek yardim etmek 
onlari -e dogru muktedir is hizli , ve yapmak daha elektronik 
kitap elde edilebilir mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlari -e 
dogru -si olmak tiim belgili tanimlik kaynak , belgili 
tanimlik para , belgili tanimlik gii¢ ve belgili tanmmlik zaman 
adl. 

su onlar liizum igin muktedir almak ¢alisma icin sen. mutlu 
etmek yardim etmek o adl. su are boliim -in belgili tanimlik 
takim adl. su yardim etmek onlar iistiinde an her temel. 
mutlu etmek vermek onlari belgili tanimlik gii¢ -e dogru 
devam etmek ve vermek her -in onlar belgili tanmmlik 
ruhani basiret icin belgili tanimlik is adl. 

su sen istemek onlari -e dogru yapmak. mutlu etmek yardim 
etmek her -in onlari -e dogru degil -si olmak korkmak ve -e 
dogru animsamak adl. su sen are belgili tanmmlik mabut kim 
yanit dua ve kim bkz. be icinde fiyat istemek -in her sey. I 
dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti yiireklendirmek onlari , ve adl. 
su sen korumak onlar1 , ve belgili tanimlik ig & bakanlik adl. 
su onlar are mesgul iginde. I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti 
korumak onlari --dan belgili tanimlik ruhani gii¢ ya da diger 
engel adl. 

su -ebil zarar onlari ya da yavas onlan aga. mutlu etmek 
yardim etmek beni ne zaman I kullanma bu Incil -e dogru da 
diisiin belgili tanimlik insanlar kim -si olmak -den yapilmis 
bu bask: elde edilebilir , taki I -ebilmek dua etmek igin 
onlari vesaire onlar -ebilmek devam etmek -e dogru yardim 


etmek daha insanlar I dua etmek ad]. su sen -cekti vermek 
beni a ask -in senin kutsal kelime ( belgili tanmlik Incil ), 
ve adl. su sen -cekti vermek beni ruhant akillilik ve 
discernment -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve -e dogru 
anlamak belgili tantmlik d6ndiirmemem adl. su biz are canli 
iginde. mutlu etmek yardim etmek beni -e dogru bilmek 
nasil -e dogru dagitmak ile belgili tanimlik miiskiilat ad]. 

su I am karsi koymak ile her giin. efendi mabut , yardim 
etmek beni -e dogru istemek -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve 
-e dogru istemek -e dogru yardim etmek diger Hristiyan 
iginde benim alan ve gevrede belgili tanimlik diinya. I dua 
etmek ad]. su sen -cekti vermek belgili tanimlik elektronik 
kitap takim ve o kim is iistiinde belgili tanimlik website ve o 
kim yardim etmek onlari senin akillilik. 

I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti yardim etmek belgili tanmmlik 
bireysel aza -in onlarin aile ( ve benim aile ) -e dogru degil 
var olmak ruhani aldatmak , ama -e dofru anlamak sen ve -e 
dogru istemek -e dofru almak ve izlemek sen icinde her yol. 
ve I sormak sen -e dogru yapmak bunlar esya adina Isa , 
amin , 


KEKEEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEEK 
KEKEEEKEKEKEEKEKEEKEKEKEEKEEK 


sevgili mabut , eyvallah adl. su bu Incil bkz. have be serbest 
birakmak taki biz are giiclii -e dogru 6Srenmek daha 


hakkinda sen. mutlu etmek yardim etmek belgili tanimlik 
insanlar -den sorumlu igin yapim bu elektronik kitap elde 
edilebilir. mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlari -e dogru 
muktedir is hizli , ve yapmak daha elektronik kitap elde 
edilebilir mutlu etmek yardim etmek onlari -e dogru -si 
olmak tiim belgili tanimlik kaynak , belgili tanimlik para , 
belgili tanimlik gii¢ ve belgili tanimlik zaman adl. 

su onlar liizum igin muktedir almak ¢aligsma icin sen. mutlu 
etmek yardim etmek o adl. su are boliim -in belgili tanimlik 
takim adl. su yardim etmek onlar iistiinde an her temel. 
mutlu etmek vermek onlari belgili tanimlik gii¢ -e dogru 
devam etmek ve vermek her -in onlar belgili tanmmlik 
ruhani basiret icin belgili tanimlik is adl. 


su sen istemek onlari -e dogru yapmak. mutlu etmek yardim 
etmek her -in onlar -e dogru degil -si olmak korkmak ve -e 
dogru animsamak adl. su sen are belgili tanimlik mabut kim 
yanit dua ve kim bkz. be ic¢inde fiyat istemek -in her sey. I 
dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti yiireklendirmek onlari , ve adl. 
su sen korumak onlar1 , ve belgili tanimlik is & bakanlik adl. 
su onlar are mesgul i¢ginde. I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti 
korumak onlari --dan belgili tanimlik ruhani gii¢ ya da diger 
engel adl. 


su -ebil zarar onlari ya da yavas onlan aga. mutlu etmek 
yardim etmek beni ne zaman I kullanma bu Incil -e dogru da 
diisiin belgili tanimlik insanlar kim -si olmak -den yapilmis 
bu baski elde edilebilir , taki I -ebilmek dua etmek icin 
onlari vesaire onlar -ebilmek devam etmek -e dogru yardim 
etmek daha insanlar I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti vermek 
beni a ask -in senin kutsal kelime ( belgili tanmlik Incil ), 
ve adl. su sen -cekti vermek beni ruhant akillilik ve 
discernment -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve -e dogru 
anlamak belgili tantmlik déndiirmemem adl. su biz are canli 
iginde. mutlu etmek yardim etmek beni -e dogru bilmek 
nasil -e dogru dagitmak ile belgili tanimlik miiskiilat adl. 


su I am karsi koymak ile her giin. efendi mabut , yardim 
etmek beni -e dogru istemek -e dogru bilmek sen daha iyi ve 
-e dofru istemek -e dofru yardim etmek diger Hristiyan 
iginde benim alan ve gevrede belgili tanimlik diinya. I dua 
etmek ad]. su sen -cekti vermek belgili tanimlik elektronik 
kitap takim ve o kim is iistiinde belgili tanimlik website ve o 
kim yardim etmek onlari senin akilllik. 

I dua etmek adl. su sen -cekti yardim etmek belgili tanmmlik 
bireysel aza -in onlarin aile ( ve benim aile ) -e dogru defil 
var olmak ruhani aldatmak , ama -e dogru anlamak sen ve -e 
dogru istemek -e dogru almak ve izlemek sen iginde her yol. 
ve I sormak sen -e dogru yapmak bunlar esya adina Isa , 
amin , 


KEKEEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEEKEEEK 
KEKEEEKEKEKEEKEEEKEKEKEEKEEK 


Serbia — Servia - Serbian 


Serbia Serbian Servian Prayer Isus Krist Molitva Bog Kako 
Moliti moci cuti moj molitva za pitati davati ponuditi mene 
otkriti duhovni Vodstvo 


Serbia - Prayer Requests (praying ) to God - explained in 
Serbian (servian) Language 


Molitva za Bog ## Kako za Moliti za Bog 
Kako Bog mo¢i €uti moj molitva 

Kako za pitati Bog za davati ponuditi mene 
Kako otkriti duhovni Vodstvo 


Kako za na¢i predaja iz urok Raspolozenje 
Kako za zasluga odredeni Clan istinit Bog nad Nebo 


Kako otkriti odredeni Clan HriSéanin Bog 
Kako za moliti za Bog droz Isus Krist 
JA imati nikada molitva pre nego 

Vazan za Bog 

Bog Zeljan ljubavi svaki osoba osoba 


Isus Krist moci pomoc 
Se Bog Biti stalo moj Zivot 
Molitva Trazenju 


stvar taj te mo¢ oskudica za uzeti u obzir govorenje za Bog 
okolo Molitva TraZenju kod te , okolo te 


Govorenje za Bog , odredeni clan Kreator nad odredeni 
élan Svemir , odredeni lan Gospodar : 


1. taj te davati za mene odredeni Clan hrabrost za moliti 
odredeni Clan stvar taj JA potreba za moliti 2. taj te davati za 
mene odredeni ¢lan hrabrost za verovati te pa primiti Sta te 
oskudica raditi s moj Zivot , umjesto mene uznijeti moj 
vlastiti volja (namera ) iznad vas. 


3. taj te davati mene ponuditi ne career moj bojazan nad 
odredeni Clan nepoznat za postati odredeni Clan isprika , 
inace odredeni Clan osnovica umjesto mene ne za sluZiti 
you. 

4. taj te davati mene ponuditi vidjeti pa uCiti kako za imati 
odredeni Clan duhovni sway JA potreba ( droz tvoj rijec 


Biblija ) jedan ) umjesto odredeni Clan dogadaj ispred pa P ) 
umjesto moj vlastiti crew duhovni putovanje. 


5. Taj te Bog davati mene ponuditi oskudica za sluziti Te 
briny 


6. Taj te podsetiti mene za razgovarati sa te prayerwhen ) JA 
sam frustriran ina¢e u problemima , umjesto tezak za odluka 
stvar ja sam jedini droz moj ljudsko bi¢e sway. 


7. Taj te davati mene Mudrost pa jedan srce ispunjen s 
Biblijski Mudrost tako da JA sluziti te briny delotvorno. 


8. Taj te davati mene jedan Zelja za ucenje tvoj rije¢ , Biblija 
, (odredeni Clan Novi Zavjet Evandelje nad Zahod ), na 
temelju jedan crew osnovica 9. taj te davati pomo¢ za mene 
tako da JA sam u mogucnosti za obaveStenje stvar unutra 
Biblija ( tvoj rije€é ) Sta JA mo¢éi osobno vezati za , pa taj 
volja pomoé mene shvatiti Sta te oskudica mene raditi unutra 
moj Zivot. 


10. Taj te davati mene velik raspoznavanje , za shvatiti kako 
za objasniti za ostali tko te biti , pa taj JA mo¢i uciti kako 
uciti pa knotkle kako za pristajati uza Sto te pa tvoj rijet ( 
Biblija ) 


11. Taj te donijeti narod ( inaée websites ) unutra moj Zivot 
tko oskudica za knotkle te , pa tko biti jak unutra njihov 
precizan sporazum nad te ( Bog ); pa Taj te donijeti narod ( 
inace websites ) unutra moj Zivot tko ¢e biti u mogué¢nosti za 
ohrabriti mene za toéno uCciti kako za podeliti Biblija reé nad 
istina (2 Timotej 215:). 


12. Taj te pomoé mene u€iti za imati velik sporazum okolo 
Sta Biblija prikaz 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu najbolji , Sta 
3. lice od TO BE u prezentu ve¢ina precizan , pa Sta je preko 


duhovni sway & snaga , pa Sta prikaz sloZiti se s odredeni 
lan izvorni rukopis taj te nadahnut odredeni €lan autorstvo 
nad odredeni Clan Novi Zavjet za pisati. 


13. Taj te davati ponuditi mene za korist moj vrijeme unutra 
jedan dobar put , pa ne za uzaludnost moj vrijeme na 
temelju Neistinit ina¢e prazan metod za dobiti zaglavni 
kamen za Bog ( ipak taj nisu vjerno Biblijski ), pa kuda tim 
metod proizvod nijedan dug rok inaée trajan duhovni voce. 


14. Taj te davati pomoé za mene za shvatiti Sta za traZiti 
unutra jedan crkva inaée jedan mjesto nad zasluga , Sta rod 
nad sumnja za pitati , pa taj te pomoé mene za naci vernik 
inacée jedan parson s velik duhovni mudrost umjesto lak 
inace neistinit odgovor. 


15. taj te uzrok mene za se¢ati se za sjeCati se tvoj rijec 
Biblija ( takav kao Latinluk 8), tako da JA moéi imati pik na 
moj srce pa imati moj pam¢enje spreman , pa biti spreman 
za davati dobro odgovarati ostali nad odredeni €lan nadati se 
taj JA imati okolo te. 


16. Taj te donijeti ponuditi mene tako da moj vlastiti 
teologija pa doktrina za slagati tvoj rije¢ , Biblija pa taj te 
nastaviti za pomoc mene knotkle kako moj sporazum nad 
doktrina mo¢i poboljSati tako da moj vlastiti Zivot , stil 
Zivota pa sporazum nastavlja da bude zaglavni kamen za Sta 
te oskudica to da bude umjesto mene. 


17. Taj te otvoren moj duhovni uvid ( zakljuéak ) sve viSe , 
pa taj kuda moj sporazum ina¢e percepcija nad te nije 
precizan , taj te pomo¢ mene uciti tko Isus Krist vjerno 3. 
lice od TO BE u prezentu. 


18. Taj te davati ponuditi mene tako da JA mo¢i za odvojen 
iko neistinit obredni Sta JA imati zavisnost na temelju , iz 


tvoj jasan poucavanje unutra Biblija , ako postoje nad Sta JA 
sam slede¢e nije nad Bog , inaée 3. lice od TO BE u 
prezentu u suprotnosti sa Sta te oskudica za poucavati nama 
okolo sledece te. 


19. Taj iko sile nad urok ne oduteti iko duhovni sporazum 
Sta JA imati , ipak radije taj JA zadrzati odredeni Clan znanje 
nad kako za knotkle te pa ne da bude lukav unutra ovih dan 
nad duhovni varka. 


20. Taj te donijeti duhovni sway pa ponuditi mene tako da 
JA volja ne da bude dio nad odredeni lan Velik Koji pada 
Daleko inaée nad iko pokret Sta postojati produhovljeno 
krivotvoriti za te pa za tvoj Svet Rijeé 


21. Taj da onde 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu bilo Sto taj JA 
imati ispunjavanja unutra moj Zivot , inace iko put taj JA ne 
imate odgovaranje za te ace JA treba imati pa taj 3. lice od 
TO BE u prezentu sprjeCavanje mene iz oba hodanje s te , 
inace imajuci sporazum , taj te donijeti tim stvar / odgovor / 
dogadaj leda u moj pam¢enje , tako da JA odre¢i se njima u 
ime Isus Krist , pa svi nad njihov vrijednosni papiri pa 
posledica , pa taj te opet staviti iko praznina ,sadness inaée 
ocajavati unutra moj Zivot s odredeni ¢lan Radost nad 
odredeni Clan Gospodar , pa taj JA postojati briny 
usredotocen na temelju znanje za sledii te kod Citanje tvoj 
rijeێ , odredeni Clan Biblija 


22. Taj te otvoren moj o¢i tako da JA moéi za jasno vidjeti 
pa prepoznati da onde 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu jedan 
Velik Varka okolo Duhovni tema , kako za shvatiti dana§ji 
fenomen ( ina¢e ovih dogadaj ) iz jedan Biblijski 
perspektiva , pa taj te davati mene mudrost za knotkle i tako 
taj JA volja uciti kako za pomoé moj prijatelj pa voljen sam 
sebe ( rodbina ) ne postojati dio nad it. 


23. Taj te osigurati taj jednom moj o¢i biti otvoreni pa moj 
pamécenje shvatiti odredeni €lan duhovni izraZajnost nad 
trenutni zbivanja uzimanje mjesto unutra odredeni ¢lan svet 
, taj te pripremiti moj srce prihvatiti tvoj istina , pa taj te 
pomoé mene shvatiti kako za naci hrabrost pa sway droz 
tvoj Svet Rijeé , Biblija. U ime Isus Krist , JA traziti ovih 
stvar potvrdujuci moj Zelja da bude sloZno tvoj volja , pa JA 
sam iskanje tvoj mudrost pa za imati jedan ljubav nad 
odredeni Clan Istina Da 


Briny podno Stranica 
Kako za imati Vje¢an Zivot 


Nama biti dearth da dana§ji foil (nad molitva trazenju za 
Bog ) 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu u moguénosti za pomoci 
te. Nama shvatiti danaSji ne moze biti odredeni Clan najbolji 
inacée vecina delotvoran prevod. Nama shvatiti taj onde biti 
mnogobrojan razli¢it putevi nad izraziv misao pa reci. Da te 
imati jedan sugestija umjesto jedan bolji prevod , inaée da te 
sli€an za uzeti jedan malen koli¢ina nad tvoj vrijeme za 
poslati sugestija nama , te Ce biti pomaganje hiljadu nad 
ostali narod isto , tko volja onda Citanje odredeni €lan 
poboljSan prevod. Nama Cesto imati jedan Novi Zavjet 
raspoloziv unutra tvoj jezik inaée unutra jezik taj biti redak 
ina¢ce star. 


Da te biti handsome umjesto jedan Novi Zavjet unutra jedan 
specifiéan jezik , ugoditi pisati nama. Isto , nama oskudica 
da bude siguran pa probati za komunicirati taj katkada , 
nama Ciniti ponuda knjiga taj nisu Slobodan pa taj Ciniti 
koStati novac. Ipak da te ne mo¢i priuStiti neki od tim 
elektroni¢ki knjiga , nama moi €esto Ciniti dobro razmena 


nad elektroni¢ki knjiga umjesto pomo€ s prevod inace 
prevod posao. 


Te ne morati postojati jedan stru¢an radnik , jedini jedan 
pravilan osoba tko 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu zainteresiran 
za pomaganje. Te treba imati jedan racunar ina¢e te treba 
imati pristup za jedan ra¢unar kod tvoj meStanin biblioteka 
inaée univerzitet inace univerzitet , otada tim obicno imati 
bolji spoj za odredeni ¢lan Internet. Te moéi isto obi¢éno 
utemeljiti tvoj vlastiti ceew SLOBODAN elektronski posta 
ra¢un kod lijeganje mail.yahoo.com 


Ugoditi uzeti maloprije otkriti odredeni lan elektronski 
posta adresa smjeSten podno inace odredeni Clan kraj nad 
dana§ji stranica. Nama nadati se te volja poslati elektronski 
posta nama , da dana§gji 3. lice od TO BE u prezentu nad 
pomoé inace hrabrenje. Nama isto ohrabriti te za dodir nama 
u vezi sa Elektroni¢éki Knjiga taj nama ponuda taj biti van 
ko8tati , pa slobodan. 


Nama Ciniti imati mnogobrojan knjiga unutra stran jezik , 
ipak nama ne uvijek mjesto njima za primiti elektronski ( 
skidati podatke ) zato nama jedini napraviti raspoloziv 
odredeni Clan knjiga ina¢e odredeni Clan tema taj biti preko 
zatrazen. Nama ohrabriti te za nastaviti za moliti za Bog pa 
za nastaviti uciti okolo Njemu kod Citanje odredeni Clan 
Novi Zavjet. Nama dobrodoSao tvoj sumnja pa primedba 
kod elektronski poSta. 


KEEEEEKEKEKKEEKEEKEEEKEEEKEEEKE 
KEEEKEKEEKKEEKEEKEKEEEKEEEEE 


Draga Dumnezeu , Multumesc that this Nou Testament 
has been released so that noi sintem capabil la spre learn 
mai mult despre tu. 


Te rog ajuta-ma oamenii responsible pentru making this 
Electronic carte folositor. Te rog ajuta-ma pe ei la spre a fi 
capabil la spre work rapid , si a face mai mult Electronic 
carte folositor Te rog ajuta-ma pe ei la spre have tot art.hot. 
resources , art.hot. bani , art.hot. strength si art.hot. timp that 
ei nevoie induntru ordine la spre a fi capabil la spre a pastra 
working pentru Tu. 


Te rog ajuta-ma aceia that esti part de la team that ajutor pe 
ei on un fiecare basis. A face pe plac la a da pe ei art.hot. 
strength la spre a continua si a da each de pe ei art.hot. spirit 
understanding pentru art.hot. work that tu nevoie pe ei la 
spre a face. 


Te rog ajuté-ma each de pe ei la spre nu have fear si la spre 
a-§i aminti that tu esti art.hot. Dumnezeu cine answers 
prayer si cine este el induntru acuzatie de tot. I pray that tu 
trec.de la will encourage pe ei , $i that tu a proteja pe ei, si 
art.hot. work & ministru that ei sint ocupat induntru. I pray 
that tu trec.de la will a proteja pe ei de la art.hot. Spirit 
Forces sau alt obstacles that a putut harm pe ei sau lent pe ei 
jos. 


Te rog ajuta-ma cind I folos this Nou Testament la spre de 
asemenea think de la oameni cine have made this a redacta 
folositor so that I a putea pray pentru pe ei $i so ei a putea a 


continua la spre ajutor mai mult oameni I pray that tu trec.de 
la will di-mi o dragoste de al tau Holy Cuvint ( art.hot. Nou 
Testament ), si that tu trec.de la will acorda-mi spirit 
wisdom si discernment la spre know tu better si la spre 
understand art.hot. perioada de timp that noi sintem viu 
induntru. 

Te rog ajuta-ma la spre know cum la spre deal cu art.hot. 
difficulties that I sint confronted cu fiecare zi. Lord 
Dumnezeu , Ajuté-mda help la spre nevoie la spre know tu 
Better si la spre nevoie la spre ajutor alt Crestin induntru 
meu arie $i around art.hot. lume. I pray that tu trec.de la will 
a da art.hot. 

Electronic carte team si aceia cine work pe website $i aceia 
cine ajutor pe ei al tau wisdom. I pray that tu trec.de la will 
ajutor art.hot. individual members de lor familie ( si meu 
familie ) la spre nu a fi spiritually deceived , numai la spre 
understand tu si eu la spre nevoie la spre accent $i a urma tu 
jnauntru fiecare way. si I a intreba tu la spre a face acestia 
things in nume de Jesus , Amen , 


KKEEEEKEEEKEEEEKEEEEEEKEEEEKEEKEK 
KEEEEEKEEEEEKEKEKEEEKEKEE 


Russian — Russe - Russie 


Russian Prayer Requests - 


MosmrsBa k 

Oora KaK NOMOJIMTb K 

Oora Kak Oor MOXKET YCIBIMATh MOeMY 

MOJIMTBE KaK CIPOCHTb, 4TO OOF Tas MOMOLIb K MHC 
kak HaHTH JyXOBHOe HaBey}eHHe 

kak HaliTu deliverance oT 31evme;ro 

AYXOB Kak NOKIOHHTLCA MoHcTHHEe Oor 

pas kak HaliTH XpucTHaHCKoe 

Oora kak TIOMONHTS kK Oory 00 

jesus christ 1 HHKOTga He MOsMIIa Tepeg, 

BaKHBIM K BJIKOOICHHOCTAM Oora 

Oora kaki0e HHIMBHAyasbHOe 

jesus, KOTOp mepcousi christ MoxKeT MOMOUB 

WeaeT BHAMATCIBHOCTb Oora 0 MOHX Bellax 
3alIpOCOB MOJIHTBE 

2KH3HH BbI MOTI XOTCTb JIA PACCMOTPCHHA NOTOBOPHTh K 
Oory 0 3alpocax MOJHTBe 

BaMH, 0 Bac 


Tonopsm k Gory, Co3qaTeAb BCeIeHHOMO, JOA: 


1. BEI Jas ObI K MHe CMEGJIOCTH TOMOJINTL BCI A Jit 
TOrO 4TOOLI NOMOJINTE 


2. BbI Jas Obl K MHC CMEJIOCTH BEpHTb BAM H NPHHUMaTB 
BbI XOTHTC CACIATb C MOCH 2KH3HbIO, BMCCTO McHa exalting 
MOH BOJIA (HAMepHe) Hay TBOHM. 


3. BbI Ja Obl MHE MOMOILNb ALA TOTO 4TOOBI HE 
IIPCIATCTBOBATb MOHM CTpaxaM HCHCBCCTHA CTaTb 
OTTOBOPKaMH, WIM OCHOBA JIA MCHA, KOTOP HY2KHO He 
CIYKUTb BBI. 4. BbI Ja Obl MHC NOMOLIb AA TOTO 4TOOBI 


YBHICTb H BEIYUHTb KaK HMCTb YXOBHY!O IIPOUHOCTh 4 
(4epe3 Balle CHOBO OnOHA) a) DIA CayyaeB Biepey H 6) 
JULI MOero COOCTBEHHOLO JM4HOLO AyXOBHOrO 
IlyTeWIeCcTBHA. 


5. Uro Bbl Oor Wasi MHE TOMOIIb JIA TOFO YTOObI XOTCTb 
CII KHTb BbI OONBIIC 


6. Uro Bel remind, uro 1 pa3roBapHBal c Bam (prayer)when 
sl CCOA PACCTPObTE WIM B 3ATPYAHCHHH, BMECTO IIbITATBCA 
pa3peMIHTb BEIM TONBKO Yepe3 MOFO JIFOACKYHO NpOUHOCTE. 


7. UTO BbI Jas MHE TIpeMyAPOCTh H CepAe 3anlOHHIIO C 
OunOneHcKOH Ipemya”poctpro Tak HOT] 4 cryxu OI BEI 
3eKTHBHO. 


8. UTO BBI JaIM MHE 2KeaHHe W3YYHTb Balle COBO, 
OuOmur0, (Hossiiia 3aBeT Gospel john), on a personal basis, 


9. BbI Jas ObI MOMOMIH K MHC Tak, UTO 1 OYTyY 3aMCTHTB 
Bel B OHONHH (BallIeM CNOBe) 4 MOTY JIM4HO OTHECTH Kk, H 
KOTOPOH MOMO2KET MHC NOHATb BbI XOTHTC MCHA CAeaTb B 
Moe 2KH3HH. 


10. Uto Ber 7am MHe OOO pacno3HaHHe, AA TOTO 
YTOObI NOHATL KaK OOBACHUT K JPYTHM KOTOPBIe BI, H YTO 
A MOT BbIyYUHTb Kak BbIYYHTb HW CYMCTb KaK CTOATb BBCpx 
TJ Bac HW Balllero Ciopa (OMOmHH) 


11. Uro Bel npuHecam moze (HH websites) B MOecH 2KH3HH 
XOTAT 3HATb BaC, H KOTOPbIC CHJIBHbI B HX TOUHOM 
BHHKaHHH Bac (Oor); H TO BbI IPHHeCAH OBI OTe (HH 
websites) B MOeH 2KH3HH OyJeT OOOZPHTb MCHA TOUHO 
BBIVYHT KaK pa3seIHTb O“OMHEO CHOBO MpaBaABI (2 timothy 
2:15). 


12. Uro BBI NOMOTIH MH BbIYYHT HMCTb OoBLIOe 
BHHKAaHHe O KOTOPbI BapHaHT Ov“ONHH CaMBIe ye, 
KOTOPBIH CaMbIM TOUHBIM, H KOTOPbI HMeeT CaMBIe 
AYXOBHBIC NPOUHOCTh & CHI, H KOTOpad BapHaHT 
cormamaeTca C HepBOHAUAIIBHO PYKOMMCAMH UTO BBI 
BOOAYIICBHIIM aBTopbl Hopsiiia 3aBeT HANCAaTB. 


13. Uro BbI 7a MOMOMIb K MHE JJLI HCIOIb30BAaHHA MOCTO 
BPeCMCHH B XOpOMeH Aopore, H Aa TOTO uTOOBI He 
PACTOUHTEILCTBOBATb MOC BPCMA Ha JIOXKHBIX WIM MYCTBIX 
MeTOax NOy4HTE closer to Oor (HO TO He OyAbTe 
TOHCTHHe OnOselickK), H Te Te MeTOAbI He MpOH3BOAaT 
HUKaKOH JONITOCpouHbIit win lasting TyXOBHBIM 

TLIO OOBOM. 


14. Uro Ber Wamu MOMOMb kK MHe TOHATS look for B YepkoB 
WIM MeCTe NOKIOHCHHA, UTO BUALI BONPOCOB, KOTOp HY2KHO 
CIIPOCHTb, H YTO BbI NOMOrIM MHe HalTH BeEpyIOWIMXx WIM 
pastor c OoOBLIOH AyXOBHOM MpeMyAPOCTbHO BMCCTO JIeCrKHX 
WIM JIOXKHBIX OTBCTOB. 


15. BbI IpHIHHHIH ObI MCHA BCIOMHHTS 1A TOTO UTOOBI 
3aNOMHHTb Balle CHOBO OHOnHa (such as Romans 8), Tak, 
YTO 4 CMOTY HMCTb Cro B MOCM CepAle H HMeTb MOH pa3yM 
OBITh MOATOTOBICHHEIM, H TOTOBO JaTb OTBCT K APyroMy 43 
YIOBAHHA KOTOPOe A HMCHO O Bac. 


16. Uro BbI NpHHecIM TOMO K MHe Tak HOT] mou 
COOCTBCHHBIC TCOMOTHA H AOKTPHHI AIA TOTO UTOORI 
COrIACHTbCA C BalIldM CIOBOM, OuOMeli HW UTO BBI 
TIPOAODKANHCh TOMOUb MHE CYMCTb KaK MOC BHHKAHHe 
AOKTPHHBbI MO%KHO YIIYUIMHTb Tak, YTO MOH COOCTBCHHBIC 
2KYBHB, lifestyle H NOHHMATS OYAYT NpOAOWKATECA OBITS 
closer to BbI XOTHTe HX ObITh AJ MCHA. 


17. Uro BEI packpBLIM MOO DYXOBHY!O NPOHHUATeIbHOCTB 
(3aKTHOUCHHA) OobIe H CONIC, H UTO re MOM BHHKAaHHe 
WIM BOCIIPHHATHE BAC He TOUHBI, ITO BbI MOMOTIM MHe 
BbIVYHTS jesus christ MOHCTHHe. 


18. Uro BbI JaJIM MOMOILb K MHe Tak HOI] 4 mor O61 
OTICIHTb JFOObIC JOKHbIC PHTYAIII 1 3ABHCeI Ha, OT BalIHXx 
ACHBIX IIpeloOTaBaTeCIBCTB B OHOHH, ecu m0O0e H3, TO 4 
following He Oora, HIM IPOTHBOMOO%KHBI K BbI XOTHTC TIA 
TOFO 4TOObI HAYSHT HAM - O CICAOBATb 3a BaMH. 


19. Uro moOnie ycunua 37a take away HHCKOIBKO AyXOBHOe 
BHHKAaHHe 1 HMCIO, HO JOBOJIbHO TO 1 COXpaHH 3HAHHC 
KaK 3HATb BaC H ObITb OOMAHYTEIM BHYTPH these days 
YXOBHOTO oOMaHa. 


20. UTo BbI MpHHeCIH AYXOBHYEO IIpO4HOCTE H MOMOTIM K 
mMue Tak HOI] « ne Oyay uacTbr1o COMBO NazaTb UpOUb 
WH JEOOOTO ABIOKCHHA ObII0 Obl AYXOBHOCT counterfeit k 
BaM H K BallleMy CBATeHLIeMy COBY. 


21. To ecam 4TO-HHOBIIb, TO A Teas B MOeH OKH3HH, WIM 
moat AOpora uTO sf HE OTBCUAI K BAM TIO Mepe TOTO Kak 1 
OJDKCH HMCTb H TO IpeAOTBpallacT MCHA OT HIM TyATb C 
BaMH, WIM HMCTb MOHMMATS, 4TO BbI IPHHeCIH Te 
things/responses/events back into Moi pa3ym, Tak HOI 1 
OTpeubsca ObI OT Hx in the name of jesus christ, H BCe 43 HX 
BIMAHH H MWOCICACTBUM, M UTO BbI 3AMCHHJIM JIHKOObIC 
emptiness, TOCKMHBOCTb WIM despair B MOCH 2KH3HH C 
yTexol Topla, H 4uTo 1 Combe OBL CCbOKyCHpOBaH Ha 
YUHTb MOCICAOBATb 3a BAMH IlyTCM UHTATb Bale COBO, 
onOmHA. 


22. Uro BbI packpblM Mou ra3a Tak HOI « Mor Os! scHo 
YBHACTb H y3HATb ecu OyAeT OOMBLIOM OOMAH O AYXOBHBIX 
TeMaX, TO KaK NIOHAT 3TO ABJICHHe (HIM 3TH CAly4an) OT 


OuONeHCKOM MepcieKTHBBI, H UTO BbI 2a MHe 
IIPCMyAPOCcTb Ad TOTO 4TOOBI 3HaTb H Tak HOI 4 Beryuy 
KaK NOMOYb MOM Jpy3bAM HW MOTKOOHT OTHH 
(pOACTBCHHHKH) AJ TOTO UTOOBI He ObITh YACTBEO ee. 


23 Uro Ber oOOecne4HIH 4TO pa3 MOH Ty1a3a PaCKPbIHbI HM MOM 
pa3yM NOHHMAacT AyXOBHOe 3HAYCHHEe TekyLIMe COOBITHA 
IIPHHHMasI MCCTO B MHpe, 4TO BbI NOATOTOBHIIM Moe Cepae 
JULI TOTO 4YTOObI MpH3HABaTb Bally WpaBAy, HW 4TO BbI 
TIOMOTIM MHC TIOHATh KAK HAHTH CMCJIOCTb H TIPOUHOCTB 
yepe3 Balle CBATeHIee CIOBO, OHO THEO. In the name of 
jesus christ, 1 Mpoury 3TH BeLIM NOATBep»K7AT Moe 2KeTAHHe 
ObITb B COOTBCTCTBHH Ballici BOJIeH, H 1 TIPOMy Baa 
TIPCMYAPOCTb H HMCTb BAFOOCHHOCTS mpaBabl, AMHHB. 


Bombe Ha THe CTpaHHibl 
KaK HMCTb BCYHAIA 2KH3Hb 


MBI paJ{OCTHEI €CJIM STOT CIIHCOK (3aNpOCOB MOJIMTBE K 
Oory) MOxKeT MOMOUB BaM. MbI MOHHMacM 3TO He MO2KCT 
ObITb CaMBI JIVUIUHM HIM CaMBIi 3:pd~eKTHBHBIM NepeBod. 
Mb! TOHHMaeM 4TO OYAYT MHOTO 0-pa3HOMy AOpor 
BbIP@WKATS MBICIM HW COBa. Ec BbI HMeeTe MpesIOKeHHE 
Aa Oonee IyUMero NepeBowa, WIM CCIM BbI XOTeT OBI OBI 
TIPHHATb MAJIO€ KOMUCCTBO BallleTO BPCMeHH NOCIaTb 
TIpeJ102%KCHHA K HAM, TO BbI OyeTe MOMOTaTb TBICTYaM 
JHOTAX TaIoKe, KOTOPble WOCIe STOFO NPOUMTAIOT 
YIVUMIeHHEIM Tepepow. Msi yuacTo HMeeM HOBBIH testament 
MMCHOINMHCA B BALeM A3bIKe WIM B A3bIKAX peqKO WIM 
crapo. Ec BbI CMOTpHTe It HOBOrO testament B 
CHCUMPHACCKH AZbIKE, TO MOMKAyHCTa HaNMIHTe K HaM. 


Takoxe, MBI XOTHM OBITb YBCpCHBI H IIbITACMCA CBA3bIBATb TO 
WHOA, MBI lipeAylaraCM KHHIM KOTOpBbIe He CBOOOZHO a 
KOTOPBIC CTOHT ACHBT. Ho ecaH BbI He MO2KETe MO3BOJLATh 
HCKOTOPBIC H3 TeX JICKTPOHHBIX KHHT, TO MbI MO2KCM YaCTO 
ACWaTb oOMeH SJICKTPOHHBIX KHHT JIA TOMOMMH C 
TiepeBOAOM HIM padoToH nepeBora. Bel He AOIDKHEI ObITh 
TIpo*ecCHOHAIBHBIM PaOOTHHKOM, TOJIbKO peryApHO 
TlepcoHa KOTOpasd 3AHHTepeCOBaHa B MOMOTaTb. 


Bai AOJDKHEI UMCTb KOMIIBIOTeCp HIM BbI AOJDKHbI HMCTb 
AOCTYII K KOMITBIOTepy Ha Bax MCCTHBIX apXHBe WIM 
KOJWICKE WIM YHUBCPCHTeTe, B BUHAY TOTO 4TO Te OOBIHHO 
WMeIOT Oosee Vue COCAMHCHHA K HHTEPHCTY. 


Bobi MooeTe Taroxe OOBTHO yCTaHaBIMBAaTb Ball 
COOCTBCHHBIM JuTHEI CBOBOJJHO yuer sexrponnasa 
TlouTa NyTeM waTH K mail.yahoo.com nowKamyiicta 
IIPHHUMaeTe MOMCHT At TOTO YTOORI CUHTATb agpec Mocie 
TOTO Kak 9JIEKTPOHHAAA MOUTA BbI PACMONOMHKEHbI Ha THE 
WIM KOHIC 3TOH CTpaHHIEl. 


MoI HaeeMCA BbI NOMNCT SICEKTPOHHAAA MOUTA K HaM, eCJIM 
93TO TOMOLIM WIM Moompenua. Mar Take OOoApsem Bac 
CBA3ATECA MBI OTHOCHTEJIBHO 3JICKTPOHHBIX KHHT MBI 
TipezaraeM TOMy 6€3 LeHBI, H CBOOOTHO, KOTOp MbI HMeeM 
MHOFO KHHT B HHOCTPaHHEIX A3bIKAX, HO MBI BCerya He 
yCTaHaBJIMBaeM HX JVI TOTO YTOOBI NOMYYHTb 3ICKTPOHHO 
(download) NoTOMY 4TO MBI TONbKO TeuaeM HMeroOLlecs 
KHHTH WIM TCEMbI KOTOpbIe CiipammuBaTb. Mpi oOo”psem Bac 
TIPOAODKATL NOMOMMTE K OOTY H WPOAOIKUTb BLIYYHTS O 
eM TlyTeM untaTb Hospiia 3aBeT. Mp npHBeTCTByeM Ball 
BOMPOCBI H KOMMCHTapHH 3ICKTPOHHasa Tora. 


KKEKEEEEEEKEEEEKKEEEEKEKEEK 


KEKEEEKEEKEEEEKEEKEEKKEEEK 


ARABIC - LANGUE ARABE 


B&EEKEEEKEEEKKKEKEKKEKKEKKEKEKEKEEKE 
uals lub 
gel I x 


ol ede oal WWhegesd lg an le age cal 93a Sp IN gle ane 
OS 00) of si Ip igs Bord 


1S gle aunle Ite | Says silo ae) [ene oat (dah 
TNS 3 sexs Wares, ree) Ce ys a da ghote 390) eds 
anit Xa, 


1S gle alg soo! eds Ng ST cy G18 eds 1K ad Sed « 
sce cel jhe) (joke INH SAS 5 scxge lpr’ 


IS igls alg ao! els zeae. 1a sho sila std 93.98 Force IdXg 
Se cilee dhs arery) alas eds asus bes 


1S gle I aule 2b Ideas ofl ze! aw Iho pecs IdX¢ Sule Ba 
EUs ble HS ce se, cues Ie biel G8 Ileal siete GU acre 
Idutoa ld reg dle ald ldkteg crags abl ly cate ch, 


ISacle piss AU aire dpe He 9b gical 
JONG Ng ig a8 Ide stand £6 40 Lage. 


NB hepa aut dlyg Gage 


1 5 (Sob hg Cra yajitia calgee ad WAS I [Sa sege by esp au 
le Gale leas seedy ly Suave | Gis acpl ls Swed. 


Wale ale tas & Cal Late a ol Goa aga Sond 5 leva 
owen Sree ceeds re) od | Slao¢e IJacies ‘ ant (Uta oe 1s) 
wueds & deol STS SOUS cba WSU aly as alt gas 

boy ag Ile. 


IE 5 ISob hy ds Ke byscrs co del dab blades (lees base) 
‘ ren Us ga He kscus 15s seuge sleds dt dualacp ey Ce ee 
fo. zac} dha rem mes 1S jecagé they iS wate: 4 gel, 


ISigle alg cag Hag ef ab chest ICE bad & Mduee He 
Wheas Sslee bes Ad 6 se. $s 30 bb sale cen g Gags hy 
Ce a tol aged sys hy cml Idle so Ider ssn Has 
dag | Jaca ss 3d lela. 


hoe she le by ee das (Ihe ges Ibe sldicey 


sacs) «© slo Gee le se Beis sels dle Gd 1b 


dal ee dysol dances $e gigs Cig 0b IS g Gh « glade acele by 
Wg Jo gle Cag lope Gu lage 





Prayer to God 
Dear God, 


Thank you that this Gospel or this New Testament has 
been released so that we are able to learn more about 
you. 


Please help the people responsible for making this 
Electronic book available. You know who they are and 
you are able to help them. 


Please help them to be able to work fast, and make 
more Electronic books available 


Please help them to have all the resources, the 
money, the strength and the time that they need in 
order to be able to keep working for You. 


Please help those that are part of the team that help 
them on an everyday basis. Please give them the 
strength to continue and give each of them the spiritual 
understanding for the work that you want them to do. 


Please help each of them to not have fear and to 
remember 

that you are the God who answers prayer and who is 
in charge of everything. 


| pray that you would encourage them, and that you 
protect them, and the work & ministry that they are 
engaged in. 


| pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual 


Forces or other obstacles that could harm them or 
slow them down. 


Please help me when | use this New Testament to 
also think of the people who have made this edition 
available, so that | can pray for them and so they can 
continue to help more people. 


| pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word 
(the New Testament), and that you would give me 
spiritual wisdom and discernment to know you better 
and to understand the period of time that we are living 
in. 


Please help me to know how to deal with the 
difficulties that | am confronted with every day. Lord 
God, Help me to want to know you Better and to want 
to help other Christians in my area and around the 
world. 


| pray that you would give the Electronic book team 
and those who help them your wisdom. God, help me 
to understand you better. Please help my family to 
understand you better also. 


| pray that you would help the individual members of 
their family (and my family) to not be spiritually 
deceived, but to understand you and to want to accept 
and follow you in every way. 


Also give us comfort and guidance in these times and | 
ask you to do these things in the name of Jesus , 
Amen, 


K&EKEREKEKKKEKK KEKE KKEKEKKEKKEE 
BOOKS which may be of Interest to you, the Reader 


KEKEEEKEEEEE KEKE KEKE 


Note: These Books listed below may be available at No 
cost, - in PDF - and Entirely FREE at: 


http://www.archive.org [text 


or at 


http://books.google.com 


or — for those in Europe - at 


http://gallica.bnf.fr 


or for FRENCH at 


http://books.google.fr/books 


We encourage you to find out, and to keep separate copies 
on separate drives, in case your own computer should have 
occasional problems. 


KEEEEEEEEEKKEEEKEEEEEEKEEKKEEKE 
A FEW BOOKS for NEW CHRISTIANS 


KEKEEEKEEEEEKEKEKEEEKEKEEE 


King James Version — The best and ideal would be the 
text of the 1611, [referring to the 66 books of the Old and 
New Testaments] as produced by the original 
translators. 


Geneva Bible — Version of the Old Testament and New 
Testament produced starting around 1560. Produced 
with the help of T (Beza)., who also produced an 
accurate LATIN version of the New Testament, based on 
the Textus Receptus. 


The Geneva Bible (several Editions of it) are available — 
as of this writing at www.archive.org in PDF 


Bible of Jay Green — Jay Green was the Translator for 
the Trinitarian Bible Society. His work is based on the 
Ancient Koine Greek Text (Textus Receptus) from 
which he translated directly. His work encompasses both 
Hebrew as well as Koine Greek (The Greek spoken at 
the time of Jesus Christ). 


The Translation of the New Testament [of Jay Green] 
can be found online in PDF for Free 


R-La grande charte d'Angleterre ; ouvrage précédé d'un 
Précis — This is simply the MAGNA CHARTA, which 
recognizes liberty for everyone. 


Gallagher, Mason - Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome 


Cannon of the Old Testament and the New Testament 

or Why the Bible is Complete without the Apocrypha and 
unwritten Traditions by Professor Archibald Alexander 
Princeton Theological Seminary 

1851 - Presbyterian Board of Publications. [available online 
Free | 


Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records 
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DOUBTS AND 
DISCOVERIES OF MODERN TIMES. by George 
Rawlinson - Lectures Delivered at Oxford University 
[available online Free ] 


The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism - by George Stanley 
Faber - 1832 —3 Vol /3 Tomes [available online Free ] 


The image-worship of the Church of Rome : proved to be 
contrary to Holy Scripture and the faith and discipline of the 
primitive church ; and to involve contradictory and 
irreconcilable doctrines within the Church of Rome itself 
(1847) 

by James Endell Tyler, 1789-1851 


Calvin defended : a memoir of the life, character, and 
principles of John Calvin (1909) by Smyth, Thomas, 1808- 
1873 ; Publish: Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of 
Publication. [available online Free ] 


The Supreme Godhead of Christ, the Corner-stone of 
Christianity by W. Gordon - 1855[available online Free ] 


A history of the work of redemption containing the outlines 
of a body of divinity ... 

Author: Edwards, Jonathan, 1703-1758. 

Publication Info: Philadelphia,: Presbyterian board of 
publication, [available online Free ] 


The origin of pagan idolatry ascertained from historical 
testimony and circumstantial evidence. - by George Stanley 
Faber - 1816 3 Vol. /3 Tomes [available online Free ] 


The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held 
A.D. 787, in which the Worship of Images was established 
- based on early documents by Rev. John Mendham - 1850 
[documents how this far-reaching Council went away from 
early Christianity and the New Testament] 


Worship of Mary by James Endell Tyler [available online 
Free | 


The Papal System from its origin to the present time 

A Historical Sketch of every doctrine, claim and practice of 
the Church of Rome by William Cathcart, DD 

1872 — [available online Free ] 


The Protestant exiles of Zillerthal; their persecutions and 
expatriation from the Tyrol, on separating from the Romish 
church — [available online Free ] 


An essay on apostolical succession- being a defence of a 
genuine ministry — by Rev Thomas Powell - 1846 


An inquiry into the history and theology of the ancient 
Vallenses and Albigenses; as exhibiting, agreeably to the 
promises, the perpetuity of the sincere church of Christ 
Publish info London, Seeley and Burnside, - by George 
Stanley Faber - 1838 [available online Free ] 


The Israel of the Alps. A complete history of the Waldenses 
and their colonies (1875) by Alexis Muston (History of the 
Waldensians) — 2 Vol/ 2 Tome — Available in English and 
Separately ALSO in French [available online Free ] 


Encouragement for Women 
Amy Charmichael 


AMY CARMICHAEL - From Sunrise Land 
[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL - Lotus buds (1910) 
[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL - Overweights of joy (1906) 
[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL -Walker of Tinnevelly (1916) 
[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL -After Everest ; the experiences of a 
mountaineer and medical mission (1936) 
[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL -The continuation of a story ({1914 


[available online Free ] 


AMY CARMICHAEL -Ragland, pioneer (1922) 
[available online Free] 


KEEEEEKEEEKEEEKEEEEEKKEEEKKEEEEK 
HISTORY OF HUNGARIAN CHRISTIANS 


KEKEEEKEEEEEKEKEKEEEKEKEEK 


HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN 
HUNGARY By J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNE - 
1854 [available online Free ] 


Hungary and Kossuth-An Exposition of the Late Hungarian 
Revolution by Tefft 
1852 [available online Free ] 


Secret history of the Austrian government and of its ... 
persecutions of Protestants By Joseph Alfred Michiels - 
1859 [available online Free ] 


Sketches in Remembrance of the Hungarian Struggle for 
Independence and National Freedom Edited by Kastner 
(Circ. 1853) [available online Free ] 


KKEEKEEEEEEKKEKKEEKEEEKEEEKEEKE 
HISTORY OF FRENCH CHRISTIANS 


KEKE KEEEEEKEKEKEEEEEEEE 


La Bible Frangaise de Calvin V 1 
[available online Free ] 


La Bible Frangaise de Calvin V 2 
[available online Free ] 


VAUDOIS - A memoir of Félix Neff, pastor of the High 
Alps [available online Free ] 


La France Protestante - ou, Vies des protestants francais 
par Haag — 1856 — 6 Tomes [available online Free ] 


Musée des protestans célébres 


Etude sur les Académies Protestantes en France au xvie et 
au xviie siécle — Bourchenin — 1882 [available online Free ] 


Les plus anciennes mélodies de l'église protestante de 
Strasbourg et leurs auteurs [microform] (1928) [available 
online Free | 


L'srael des Alpes: Premiére histoire compléte des Vaudois 
du Piémont et de leurs colonies 

Par Alexis Muston ; Publié par Marc Ducloux, 1851 

(2 Tomes) [available online Free ] 


GALLICA - http://gallica.bnf.fr 


Histoire ecclésiastique — 3 Tomes - by Théodore de Béze, 
[available online Free ] 


BEZE-Sermons sur l'histoire de la résurrection de Notre- 
Seigneur Jésus-Christ [available online Free ] 


DE BEZE - Confession de la foy chrestienne [available 
online Free | 


Vie de J. Calvin by Théodore de Béze, [available online 
Free | 


Confession d'Augsbourg (frangais). 1550-Melanchthon 
[available online Free ] 


La BIBLE-I'éd. de, Genéve-par F. Perrin, 1567 [available 
online Free | 


Hobbes - Léviathan ou La matiére, la forme et la puissance 
d'un état ecclésiastique et civil [available online Free ] 


L'Eglise et I'Etat 4 Genéve du vivant de Calvin 
Roget, Amédée (1825-1883). 
[available online Free ] 


LUTHER-Commentaire de l'épitre aux Galates [available 
online Free ] 


Petite chronique protestante de France [available online Free 


] 


Histoire de la guerre des hussites et du Concile de Basle 
2 Tomes [recheck for accuracy] 


Les Vaudois et I'Inquisition-par Th. de Cauzons (1908) 
[available online Free ] 


Glossaire vaudois-par P.-M. Callet [available online Free ] 


Musée des protestans célébres ou Portraits et notices 
biographiques et littéraires des personnes les plus éminens 
dans l'histoire de la réformation et du protestantisme par une 


société de gens de lettres [available online Free ] 

( publ. par Mr. G. T. Doin; Publication: Paris : Weyer : Treuttel et Wurtz : 
Scherff [et al.], 1821-1824 - 6 vol./6 Tomes : ill. ; in-8 

Doin, Guillaume-Tell (1794-1854). Editeur scientifique) 


Notions élémentaires de grammaire comparée pour servir a 
l'étude des trois langues classiques [available online Free ] 


Thesaurus graecae linguae ab Henrico Stephano constructus. 
Tomus I: in quo praeter alia plurima quae primus praestitit 
vocabula in certas classes distribuit, multiplici derivatorum 
serie... 


( Estienne, Henri (1528-1598). Auteur du texte Tomus I,II,IILIV : in quo 
praeter alia plurima quae primus praestitit vocabula in certas classes 
distribuit, multiplici derivatorum serie; Thesaurus graecae linguae ab 


Henrico Stephano constructus ) [available online Free ] 


La liberté chrétienne; étude sur le principe de la piéte chez 
Luther ; Strasbourg, Librairie Istra, 1922 - Will, Robert 
[available online Free ] 


Bible-N.T.(francais)-1523 - Lefévre d'Etaples [available 
online Free | 


Calvin considéré comme exégéte - Par Auguste Vesson 
[available online Free ] 


Reuss, Rodolphe - Les églises protestantes d'Alsace pendant 
la Révolution (1789-1802) [available online Free ] 


WEBBER-Ethique_protestante-L'éthique protestante et 
l'esprit du capitalisme (1904-1905) [available online Free ] 


French Protestantism, 1559-1562 (1918) 
Kelly, Caleb Guyer -[available online Free ] 


History of the French Protestant Refugees, from the 
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes 1854 [available online 
Free | 

The History of the French, Walloon, Dutch and Other 


Foreign Protestant Refugees Settled in 1846 [available 
online Free ] 


R&EEEEKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEKE 
Italian and/or Spanish/Castillian/ etc 
R&EEKEKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKEKEEK 
Historia del Concilio Tridentino (SARPJ) [available online 
Free | 


Aldrete, Bernardo José de - Del origen, y principio de la 
lengua castellana 6 romace que oi se usa en Espafia 


SAVANAROLA-Vindicias historicas por la inocencia de 
Fr. Geronimo Savonarola 


Biblia en lengua espafiola traduzida palabra por palabra de 
la verdad hebrayca-FERRARA 


Biblia. Espafiol1 1602-translaciones por Cypriano de Valera 
( misspelled occasionally as Cypriano de Varela ) [available 
online Free ] 


Reina Valera 1602 — New Testament Available at 
www.archive.org [available online Free ] 


La Biblia : que es, los sacros libros del Vieio y Nuevo 
Testamento 


Valera, Cipriano de, 1532-1625 

Los dos tratados del papa, i de la misa - escritos por 
Cipriano D. Valera ; i por él publicados primero el a. 1588, 
luego el a. 1599; i ahora fielmente reimpresos [Madrid], 
1851 [available online Free ] 


Valera, Cipriano de, 1532?-1625 

Aviso a los de la iglesia romana, sobre la indiccion de 
jubiléo, por la bulla del papa Clemente octavo. 

English Title = An ansvvere or admonition to those of the 
Church of Rome, touching the iubile, proclaimed by the 
bull, made and set foorth by Pope Clement the eyght, for the 
yeare of our Lord. 1600. Translated out of French [available 
online Free | 


Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century by Cornelius 
August Wilkens French [available online Free ] 


Historia de Los Protestantes Espafioles Y de Su Persecucion 
Por Felipe II — Adolfo de Castro — 1851 (also Available in 


English) [available online Free ] 


The Spanish Protestants and Their Persecution by Philip I 


— 1851 - Adolfo de Castro [available online Free ] 


Institvcion de la religion christiana; 
Institutio Christianae religionis. Spanish 
Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564 


Instituzion religiosa escrita por Juan Calvino el afio 1536 y 
traduzida al castellano por Cipriano de Valera. 
Calvino, Juan. 


Catecismo que significa: forma de instrucion, que contiene 
los principios de la religion de dios, util y necessario para 
todo fiel Christiano : compuesto en manera de dialogo, 
donde pregunta el maestro, y responde el discipulo 

En casa de Ricardo del Campo, M.D.XCVI [1596] Calvino, 
Juan. 


Tratado para confirmar los pobres catiuos de Berueria en la 
catolica y antigua se, y religion Christiana: y para los 
consolar con la Palabra de Dios en las afliciones que 
padecen por el evangelio de Iesu Christo. [...] Al fin deste 
tratado hallareys un enxambre de los falsos milagros, y 
illusiones del Demonio con que Maria de la visitacion priora 
de la Anunciada de Lisboa engafio 4 muy muchos: y de 
como fue descubierta y condenada al fin del afio de .1588 
En casa de Pedro Shorto, Afio de. 1594 

Valera, Cipriano de, 


Biblia de Ferrara, corregida por Haham R. Samuel de 
Casseres 


The Protestant exiles of Madeira (c1860) French [available 
online Free ] 


K&EKEEEEEEKEKEEKEEKEEEKEEEKEEKE 


HISTORY OF VERSIONS of the NEW TESTAMENT 
Part A — For your consideration 
KKEKEKEEKEKEKEEKEKKEKEKEKKEER 


For Christians who want a serious, detailed and 
historical account of the versions of the New Testament, 
and of the issues involved in the historic defense of 
authentic and true Christianity. 


John William Burgon [ Oxford] -1 The traditional text of the 
Holy Gospels vindicated and established (1896) [available 
online Free ] 


John William Burgon [ Oxford] -2 The causes of the 
corruption of the traditional text of the Holy Gospel 
[available online Free ] 


John William Burgon [ Oxford] — The Revision Revised 
(A scholarly in-depth defense of Ancient Greek Text of the 
New Testament) [available online Free ] 


Intro to Vol 1 from INTRO to MASSORETICO CRITICAL 
by GINSBURG-VOL | [available online Free ] 


Intro to Vol 1 from INTRO to MASSORETICO CRITICAL 
by GINSBURG-VOL 2 [available online Free ] 


Hore Mosaicz; or, A view of the Mosaical records, with 
respect to their coincidence with profane antiquity; their 


internal credibility; and their connection with Christianity; 
comprehending the substance of eight lectures read before 
the University of Oxford, in the year 1801; pursuant to the 
will of the late Rev. John Bampton, A.M. / By George 
Stanley Faber -Oxford : The University press, 1801 
[Topic: defense of the authorship of Moses and the 
historical accuracy of the Old Testament] [available online 
Free | 


TC The English Revisers' Greek Text-Shown to be 
Unauthorized, Except by Egyptian Copies Discarded 
[available online Free ] 


CANON of the Old and New Testament by Archibald 
Alexander [available online Free ] 


An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate- or, 
Received text of the New Testament 1815 92mb [available 
online Free ] 


A vindication of 1 John, v. 7 from the objections of M. 
Griesbach [available online Free ] 


The Burning of the Bibles- Defence of the Protestant 
Version — Nathan Moore - 1843 


A dictionarie of the French and English tongues 1611 
Cotgrave, Randle - [available online Free ] 


The Canon of the New Testament vindicated in answer to 
the objections of J.T. in his Amyntor, with several additions 
[available online Free ] 


the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures vindicated 
(1868) 


Histoire du Canon des Saintes-écritures Dans L'eglise 
Chrétienne ; Reuss (1863) [available online Free | 


Histoire de la Société biblique protestante de Paris, 1818 a 
1868 [available online Free ] 


L'académie protestante de Nimes et Samuel Petit 

Le manuel des chrétiens protestants : Simple exposition des 
croyances et des pratiques - Par Emilien Frossard - 1866 
Jean-Frédéric Osterwald, pasteur 4 Neuchatel 

David Martin 


The canon of the Holy Scriptures from the double point of 
view of science and of faith (1862) [available online Free ] 


CODEX B & ALLIES by University of Michigan Scholar 
H. Hoskier (1914) 2 Vol [available online Free ] 
R&EEKEKKEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEKEEKKE 
HISTORY OF VERSIONS of the NEW TESTAMENT 
Part B — not Recommended 
R&EEEEKKEKKKKKKKKKKKEKEEEKE 
Modern Versions of the New Testament, most of which 
were produced after 1910, are based upon a newly invented 


text, by modern professors, many of whom did not claim to 
believe in the New Testament, the Death and Physical 


Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the necessity of Personal 
Repentance for Salvation. 


The Translations have been accomplished all around the 
world in many languages, starting with changeover from the 
older accurate Greek Text, to the modern invented one, 
starting between 1904 and 1910 depending on which 
edition, which translation team, and which publisher. 


We cannot recommend: the New Testament or Bible of 
Louis Segond. This man was probably well intentioned, but 
his translation are actually based on the 8" Critical edition 
of Tischendorf, who opposed the Reformation, the 
Historicity of the Books of the Bible, and the Greek Text 
used by Christians for thousands of years. 


For additional information on versions, type on the Internet 
Search: “verses missing in the NIV” and you will find more 
material. 


We cannot recommend the english-language NKJV, even 
though it claims to depend on the Textus Receptus. That is 
not exactly accurate. The NKJV makes this claim based on 
the ecclectic [mixed and confused] greek text collated 
officially by Herman von Soden. The problem is that von 
Soden did not accomplish this by himself and used 40 
assistants, without recording who chose which text or the 
names of those students. Herman Hoskier [Scholar, 
University of Michigan] was accurate in demonstrating the 
links between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and the Greek Text of 
Von Soden. Thus what is explained as being “based on” the 
Textus Receptus actually was a departure from that very 
text. 


The Old Testaments of almost all modern language Bibles, 
in almost all languages is a CHANGED text. It does NOT 
conform to the historic Old Testament, and is based instead 
on the recent work of the German Kittel, who can be easily 
considered an Apostate by historic Lutheran standards. 
(more in a momentf). 


The Old Testament of the NKJV is based on the New 
Hebrew Translation of Kittel. [die Biblia Hebraica von 
Rudolf Kittel ] Kittel remains problematic for his own 
approach to translation. 


Kittel, the translator of the Old Testament [for almost all 
modern editions of the Bible]: 


1. Did not believe that the Pentateuch he translated was 
accurate. 

2. Did not believe that the Pentateuch he translated was the 
same as the original Pentateuch. 

3. Did not believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament or 
the New Testament. 


4. Did not believe in what Martin Luther would believe 
would constitute Salvation (salvation by Faith alone, in 
Christ Jesus alone). 

5. Considered the Old Testament to be a mixture compiled 
by tribes who were themselves confused about their own 
religion. 


Most people today who are Christians would consider Kittel 
to be a Heretical Apostate since he denies the inspiration of 
the Bible and the accuracy of the words of Jesus in the New 
Testament. Kittel today would be refused to be allowed to 
be a Pastor or a translator. His translation work misleads 


and misguides people into error, whenever they read his 
work. 


The Evidence against Kittel is not small. It is simply the 
work of Kittel himself, and what he wrote. Much of the 
evidence can be found in: 


A history of the Hebrews (1895) by R Kittel — 2 Vol 


Essentially, Kittel proceeds from a number of directions to 
undermine the Old Testament and the history of the 
Hebrews, by pretending to take a scholarly approach. Kittel 
did not seem to like the Hebrews much, but he did seem to 
like ancient pagan and mystery religions. (see the Two 
Babylons by Hislop, or History of the Temple by 
Edersheim, and then compare). 


His son Gerhard Kittel, a “scholar” who worked for the 
German Bible Society in Germany in World War II, with 
full aproval of the State, ALSO was not a Christian and 
would ALSO be considered an apostate. Gerhard Kittel 
served as advisor to the leader of Germany in World War II. 
After the war, Gerhard Kittel was tried for War Crimes. 


On the basis of the Documentation, those who believe in the 
Bible and in Historic Christianity are compelled to find 
ALTERNATIVE texts to the Old Testament translated by 
Kittel or the New Testaments that depart from the historic 
Ancient Koine Greek. 


Both Kittel Sr and Kittel Jr appear to have been false 
Christians, and may continue to mislead many. People who 
cannot understand how this can happen may want to read a 
few books including : 


Seduction of Christianity by Dave Hunt. 


The Agony of Deceit by Horton 

Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by C. Cumbey 

The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell (Editor of 
Christianity Today) 


Those who want more information about Kittel should 
consult: 


1) Problems with Kittel — Short paper sometimes available 
online or at www.archive.org 


2) The Theological Faculty of the University of Jena during 
the Third .... in PDF [can be found online sometimes] 
by S. Heschel, Professor, Dartmouth College 


3) Theologians under .... : Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and 
Emanuel Hirsch / Robert P. Ericksen. 

Publish info New Haven : Yale University Press, 1985. 
(New Haven, 1987) 


4) Leonore Siegele - Wenschkewitz, Neutestamentliche 
Wissenschaft vor der Judenfrage: Gerhard Kittels 
theologische Arbeit im Wandel deutscher Geschichte 
(Miinchen: Kaiser, 1980). 


5) Rethinking the German Church Struggle 


by John S. Conway [online] 
http://motlc. wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual4/chap18.html 


6) Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust 
by Robert P. Ericksen (Editor), Susannah Heschel (Editor) 


Psalm 50:15 
15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver 
thee, and thou shalt glorify me. 


Psalm 90 

91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High 
shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. 

2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: 
my God; in him will I trust. 

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, 
and from the noisome pestilence. 

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings 
shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. 

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the 
arrow that flieth by day; 

6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for 
the destruction that wasteth at noonday. 

7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy 
right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. 

8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward 
of the wicked. 

9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, 
even the most High, thy habitation; 

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague 
come nigh thy dwelling. 

11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep 
thee in all thy ways. 

12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy 
foot against a stone. 

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion 
and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. 


14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I 
deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known 
my name. 

15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be 
with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. 

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my 
salvation. 


Psalm 23 

23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall 
not want. 

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth 
me beside the still waters. 

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of 
righteousness for his name's sake. 

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of 
death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and 
thy staff they comfort me. 

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine 
enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth 
over. 

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days 
of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for 
ever. 


With My Whole Heart - With 
all my heart 


"with my whole heart" 


If we truly expect God to respond to us, we must be 
willing to make the commitment to Him with our 
whole heart. 


This means making a commitment to Him with our 
ENTIRE, or ALL of our heart. Many people do not 
want to be truly committed to God. They simply want 
God to rescue them at that moment, so that they can 
continue to ignore Him and refuse to do what they 
should. God knows those who ask help sincerely and 
those who do not. God knows each of our thoughts. 
God knows our true intentions, the intentions we 
consciously admit to, and the intentions we may not 
want to admit to. God knows us better than we know 
ourselves. When we are truly and honestly and 
sincerely praying to find God, and wanting Him with all 
of our heart, or with our whole heart, THAT is when 
God DOES respond. 


What should people do if they cannot make this 
commitment to God, or if they are afraid to do this ? 
Pray : 


Lord God, | do not know you well enough, please help 
me to know you better, and please help me to 
understand you. Change my desire to serve you and 
help me to want to be committed to you with my whole 
heart. | pray that you would send into my life those 
who can help me, or places where | can find accurate 
information about You. Please preserve me and help 
me grow so that | can be entirely committed to you. In 
the name of Jesus, Amen. 


Here are some verses in the Bible that demonstrate 
that God responds to those who are committed with 
their whole heart. 


(Psa 9:1 KJV) To the chief Musician upon Muthlabben, 
A Psalm of David. | will praise thee, O LORD with my 
whole heart; | will show forth all thy marvellous works. 


(Psa 111:1 KJV) Praise ye the LORD. | will praise the 
LORD with my whole heart, in the assembly of the 
upright, and in the congregation. 

(Psa 119:2 KJV) Blessed are they that keep his 
testimonies, and that seek him with my whole heart. 


(Psa 119:10 KJV) With my whole heart have | sought 
thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. 


(Psa 119:34 KJV) Give me understanding, and | shall 
keep thy law; yea, | shall observe with my whole heart. 


(Psa 119:58 KJV) | entreated thy favour with my whole 
heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word. 


(Psa 119:69 KJV) The proud have forged a lie against 
me: but | will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. 


(Psa 119:145 KJV) KOPH. | cried with my whole heart; 
hear me, O LORD: | will keep thy statutes. 


(Psa 138:1 KJV) A Psalm of David. | will praise thee 
with my whole heart: before the gods will | sing praise 
unto thee. 


(Isa 1:5 KJV) Why should ye be stricken any more? ye 
will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and 
the whole heart faint. 


(Jer 3:10 KJV) And yet for all this her treacherous 
sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole 
heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. 


(Jer 24:7 KJV) And | will give them an heart to know 
me, that | am the LORD: and they shall be my people, 
and | will be their God: for they shall return unto me 
with their whole heart. 


(Jer 32:41 KJV) Yea, | will rejoice over them to do 
them good, and | will plant them in this land assuredly 
with my whole heart and with my whole soul. 


| Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: 
and be ready always to give an answer to every man 
that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with 
meekness and fear: 


Il Timothy 2: 15 Study to show thyself approved unto 
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, 
rightly dividing the word of truth. 











go ary ney (eae 


ae 
ier arte fy Gage AS 


“Sr 






































\dolel > >sey 5 aad ink hin! sel 





EE 








cegtge VITA 
nrigc " V 


sheila WA 
oe 
oye TT 
leg 1} 7 
limy FP] 4 
boy F & 


oe 
Vine ghey dae Yeates | 





Blo\s>| 


& JF) 


nda) 


Pe 
oy SAI 


Jad Shel) 


ina wh) 


S\ 


PDs 


set | 


ibye 


a 


Ss) 
Sepa 


re 
sos) 











| -oJe 25 Alls pi BY 9 webs «> dye) Sy Sosy v Sb55 al, sek jek i 


bigs ged! 2513 ey. Ye yet ix | o,!> d! cur Noe Slew ereaahgy 


Nase J3 aay) a BU Vee NS eKG a itaha | 


{lsedke als ee fo Gab 3 al vien Bhs PK os Shr Ka -| 














se hs | 
SMe” | 


I wiping By G81 Ge ek rege Vad aslo ctl al gget te LS 
Oana Aly Gabe VU oe Dbiy Corll als Boro t Seb Iba I, Croglat 9/1 
(1 Oghe oly Oyt8y. cyte aly OblLt,. oldke i Pyles gb! aly Og pars | 
ay Brat ot Ny tasty S98 by coe Aas sly st pry lel os 560 hs Oghegs | 
Ay phess. play Vy chbegy by g¥ Fl oe Olle sl, ull», Noy. EMMY ogo), 
[eer So IAS mip Hy Bulg Eu ON, et LS Ail 
| Opel: Sl Aly getty gue tly Spo gr LE I, lel, Se) Aly pbs (ly: Ol, 
|). Jags 3 NS Sh geass Sa ge be BS LS al, Lag Us 


\ 
} 
ae 1g!) 


oat ied iy pens ai doe yg} als Gyrley. Glo Reval 
Wey lee al BN &* j= wing: Us Cogias 911. ata, ANS Okay; hee a { 


She pts te) ae. or us: See SH 
2¢ 


1} 





Nez oN col lid By SSIES Cass ie adley ) os dr 32 


etl “es Vy » plgede ae a. My eo sa Ol Y ogo Gal), 
Je Laie Pe SS WW ia, rr Plies -, shad (alt SY. Eom Tee Braet rT 
avait gil Sine tel See e: So al dell WSyarre. Sad od sll Ge 
\nae My 
Ldn bred al SBT, GS PSV. OB 
to. delleoy <I Lal ol! 
| As} one 
33 BAM oe Got VSN aE og ae pul Ddorxd et oa d gous Mr | 




















{ee 

















OMe 
st ye! 
bons ale 
ete 
ta el heli 
PAC 
bf «i 


or Leal (ee 


dang 5s “yo Cedlabadl Jo yo & 
ivepe Sie a yee pat Cell 
Ul, Oley utes say sell lay pi G36 


bar 


B16. .  Cwydigetls Cpalyy pe “ale, 
17-7 Rae ae UH pny Vly aly, 
Res 2, wh) ngs “tlw, 
CS A ways we “lay 
552... Csym Cogley ple “alle, 
B61. . jlo posts J! ple “alley | 


590 


« gidye clingy dh) ple “aly | 
5. apy sling: (it ple “dls, 
5 ae slings pce ple “aly 


» 587 . 


isin uly page “abbey, | 


aed (le ol ble, 


+ alg Cmag pig ple “Alw, 


sell slings Cbs GUS 





pay DAL cal Cndyy “allen, 


5. wi S Jal asym lye “len, 


O2L sym Lmlgy yg “alla, 


ah coho ply “aly 
«analy ole Cudgy “allay 
hs Dal coho Calpy “atu, 
: woud shy Use “ale 
: guiniled, eo) J} “hay 








LE 


NOUVEAU TESTAMENT 


DE 


NOTRE SEIGNEUR JESUS-CHRIST 


p’APRES LA VERSION REVUE 


Par J. F. OSTERVALD 



















Ze 


Ht ia 
AN 
ANY 


Z/> 














hk 








= eee 


~ SOCIETE BIBLIQUE 
SX. DE FRANCE. 





PARIS 
SOCIETE BIBLIQUE DE FRANCE 
. 41, RUE LA BRUYERE 
1872 
One of the Reliable copies of the French New Testament - Une Bible fidele. 


Available sometimes [and Free (gratis) ] at www.archive.org: 


TABLE DES LIVRES 


DU NOUVEAU TESTAMENT 


Evangile selon saint Matthieu 


Evangile selon saint Mare .. 
Evangile selon saint Lue... 
Evangile selon saint Jean .. 


Les Actes des Apétres.... 


. 


Epitre de saint Paul aux Ro- 
mains... eee eee eee ee 
Tre Fpitre aux Corinthiens .. 


IIe Epitre aux Corinthiens . 
Epitre aux Galates .. +--+ 


Epitre aux Ephésiens Sa Saree 


Fpitre aux Philippiens ... 


Epitre aux Colossiens...... 
Ire Epitre aux Thessaloniciens. 











Nombre 
Pages des 
chap. 
1 | Ife Hpitre aux Thessaloniciens. 3 
52 | [re Fpitre a Timothée...... 6 
85 | Ile Epitre & Timothée. . »- & 
139 Bpitre & Tite 5 aeeshen cs - 8 
179 Bpitre 4 Philémon. Stes “Ab 
Epitre aux Hébreux....... 18 
232 Bpitre de saint Jacques..... 5 
255 | Ire Epitre de saint Pierre.... 5 
277 | Ife Fpitre de saint Pierre. . 8 
292 | Ire Epitre desaintJean..... 5 
300 | Tie Epitre desaintJean..... 1 
307 | Ite Epitre de saint Jean..... 1 
313 Epitre de saint Jude....... 1 
318 | Apocalypse de saint Jean. ... 22 


Le signe { indique la division du texte en paragraphes. 


Pages. 


328 
326 
332 
336 
339 
340 
357 
362 
369 
373 
379 
380 
384 
383 


La Bible la plus fidele = Texte Recu - Grec Koine - d’Estienne (1550-51) 


BOOKS OF THE NEW a 


Matthew 
Mark . 
Luke ... 
John 

The Acts 


Epistle to the Romans 


I. Corinthians ... 
II. Corinthians... 
Galatians 
Ephesians 
Philippians 
Colossians 

‘I. Thessalonians 
Il. Thessalonians 
I. Timothy 

II. Timothy 
Titus 

Philemon 
Hebrews 
Epistle of James 
TI. Peter 

IT. Peter 

I. John 

II. John 

IT. John 

Jude 


Revelation 


SRA EAN Bi 


A+ st 
BAHT Et 
A+ et 
+t 
BATCH 
FRAT it 
A+ it 
Rots 
EAB 


zat 


#9 at 
2 at 


HaMRAS 

Ha wey 

es i 

Ee eae 

£5 F748 

A Ree 

2 ASKS 
RASHES 
GAREMOS 

SAMBO 

GALE 

GAS 


Se at a Wl ASME Rea a 
= HEER A WERE 


RA at 
S09 at 


= et 


Sit 
RET 
BH 
HB 
Bit 
SH 
Sit 
iit 


3 


oe 


HWKkKEES 
BRABRRE 
ESB 
BPS 
BAKA GE 
HAH 
SHER 
RGR 
e-Bay 
BoA BH 
GIBB 
BAR 

Son Ba 


Chinese Simplified - Request to God 


Te eA RAE AR PF. TB HAT TB PR 
BOVE, AME SEDO BS PU AD ea BT SN 
REARS LEAR ATA. ER. TEN TE) 


SAAB SY ASAE BAM — BS Rt. 
Se a Ae eM ERE, EA 
fi 

APB BI SHOALS, OR 9 BLE 
HI EA 


Dore, es REA, FAVE RP, FFA VE & BRIE 


5 

Petr te, Ske PREP THT Se BB fe AE Ba HTT PR BS 

TIRES RAR 

Tee RS RR aA) as ASF RUA AR, LL 
A Dene AT tr 79 (I Ie Ht ae a BE ae A Bear ae, 18 
BERRIES BTR GTA) Be, FIBA RS TA STARA 

TAIRA AT RRR EE EG 








TWH RATT AE, RSBA REY 
God ETP, RRB IRE RE HE CEE EER 
FS) Desa FETE FF o 


PRAT te, RSS 2S MSS A) FS A AB AT 


FE) BS o 


ExAT HE, TES FB ET Ze ECE AREY) EB ic EAB 
AER, (BA RPA Se ARR ek HAE 
SMBS HESS LA GEREN 2 MC, Bal, 








Chinese Traditional - Talking to the Lord of Heaven 


Ae Lie, eh WM eA LF DUM BESS OS elles 
<0 FEA RA SE EAB Pe A. 
BOVE, REESE AYRE] BAR eee BD AP Pa Se 
As J AGRA LVPAVER ATR. Se. TATA 


aa ee ASA — Ba et ee 
er ETE] PTS HE AS LE, SEP BB PZ 
AEA ACTS, Jace Ele lke BE BS AY a 
Dotti, OS SOE, We AVE Ce VS, We A VE & BRS 
Bd, Dearie, SOS Cae oe Se RS BS MPR RY 
iS tH) BEC RE 


RHR ER AH SET FAL BMA AR, DL 
(ERA FE th POA PY RI BES BA, 1 
PERE MER) B, Uh eS A A 
AEE Se UNA PLE EOD 

PRHRSHN A, RRS R HY. 


God fl F, MRRP OME Ee AE eR CRE EER 
AY ET BOAT Ae, SEB eS RY ae A 
We AB ES a BD (PR So 




















TMA tae, SRS Pe A Pe REE AREY) AY kc he HEAR 
ASG, (AAS SCT ER BE YT. MR A EE 
SMBUS Ses LA AG RREN 3 Se, ba], 








Chinese Traditional - Request to God 


mony) big, alee wrmh een SLM EMRE OS IR 


mae RARER TS AA. Gee By MRE TRE 
HVE, AE ES SY AA ee BPA CP Se ae 
Resa LVERER ATA IR. Ee8. TBAT) 


ar eB BB — Bh eB Po A EAP 7 BR 
er FE (Tg] HPS RE AS LE, SEP Ee BB PR 
A eve NaS, Jee Ele ak AE BY a 
Dottie, 8B BU RAM, Whe Ae PY, Th A PE BS 
Bd, Dearie, SOS Ce oe 5c Re Sa HPS BR Y 
i HH EC RE. 


age RE EAS or) eg BS 4 A eA AR, DA 
(EERE AT fie 5 PLT A IH (tPA eB SE 2 AB Ear te, 1 
fer ERIE HS BEER BTN) 2, Ae ES tS SR 

BIOS BE Ze A HER RA DP Re EE BS A 

aI REAT ASE RRS K RE 


God Fal F, BRAG SA OIE BE ae AE eB) EE EER 
AY TRIAD ETE 2 ERAT A, SRE MES AY BS AS 
Whe EL BBS Be BD Hh PR BY FS o 


XAT He, SES Pe Ze BECERRA) 7 BY i ha HEB 
‘Gh, (AAR STR TT. MARE 
SMBUS Hes LA ARRAY 3 Se, bal, 














Korean - Request to God 


L4oj] ZrS-oj Sy 
70] Bo} 2c} TL 
QIAl| o+7| = pall 
Sg Se}, Wx} Hl 
rs} 1S0| 918101 BS = SI, Ea 


Ss Ss (eo) —_— 
XS SHAS. El He 0 


x0 


a9). Sere 
, =7| Plotof TS0 7 Js ast 
has ihe ee igs ie 


~~ U Fe no 


Lto| 2} of 04 el Poe qaact De} Ass 44a 
|, & 2p Sora DL 7} 158, 17} 7|Sstcp. Lol 
SlotoY L17F TSS onal Oe ASSES USE SO 


ek x01 Slo ISS SS Selle] W7t7|SSICh LY} I 
SO} Tey Al = QUECH S}7| S[sto4, Lp} ES O| HS o| Bet 
4 Qi] SE AFEES| HZbS}7| S[sto4 o| AlSS o| Bsr oy Ls 


Se 7a 7158 Nate oe 714 


er et 
Met Ga (ALS S| A} SS BE 


— 


2) a1 7| Sstcf Lfol] Sfofoj HSC AA, Pel7} APOE 
7|Zt Ooh ot7| Plofod 7} L404] II O44 01 pie 2A2AIHSa 
AlE|] 17 -. L-7} OF AL04] CHA StH TD L}7} SSS CH | ule 
04 0f B7| CHAS SHAR. GodFeE, 4HAFYHEOAYS, 

A 34 Otol] 2e|D AMAIA C= A Wes Bet ala nme 
L}O}] QlofOf {7} SJAFO| EO] Aot=E AAPASSYHAAAS 
MES TES9 728 S84 Anas L+0}| a 
of 47} 189 S| = (2 7S)2| HOA AAS 
O|X| FSEAS SIG] D7}, DAL YE oaks 2 
|= 4tofSo|, m2 
Of] AA] Of] = 04] PHAM] SFO4 o| 912 Amendte}al im 





Japanese - Request to God 


HUBS, AIEDDREIC DUC ORME FAS ED 
< OFTMBED HRMS NECEBYU RED, COBFRE 
(FACE SZLDICS US AI BERHS AXREDIFES UL, 
Eb BIR MIS HUI BFAZACZESEDICS HAS 
LY €nNb5 RHOREOK OILS Hilts no WHEL T64BH 
TAC. SBE. BSTSLVURAMMPHAZOS HIBS, 
F-—LOBDCHSENSSAHIRSWtNS5& BAR 
SB. CNHHSICLTIELWVTEFTNSE DENENIKHSBOED 
OkstHA ZTE ReS lt, SASKROMENS (CS ESAR 
SLY, ENS DENENMENE HEAWOZEL THY le 
SASTNCEHYL, HCHSACLERBAZARVOSZ HIE 
SU, Plc ko TIHEBL CWS CEENS AMET. 
BRUAB(REBITS TEENS, TEMMY, 

Blocks TENS ICBASAD. HKSESHSCEM 
CES MOMSD BANA DDS ENS ERBTSCEDH 
5. MATHS RVUGEPTCERCFCESED (CO. MAKER 
ORAM ACESEDICSHRAZICOWTHAS OT 
OMMBEESATSLSAMADIFESWENSOKOIH 
SLY RK DAKREMISGIS CXS MlCKDTlIMICH 
EEO AAR ae (ATMS) OBLAST L. ELH 
SHotek< MY, MEMES CWS EMS IBIS 
DC FAC FAFHAI ZR FBS KUAS SHA SAZASTEDM, 
DMOBA& BAS NST MABEL S&P AHKZHAO 
% BITES, 

God Elk, MABDIEK< WY, MORMOTL THA 
DOD YRAFrVERITEWE BUKWE BS O% lt 
S BMiICkDTlAVITF HA ICY MOBELVENSS 
SASBFENSZEHREOWMBMIISAROF-AZE5EELU 
F-LETEMMS, Milo ko TARR (BEVMORKR) 
DIX OX V/N—PFAHHAIIC RRO NAWOe BITS BITE 
BDDY., HHOMWSAHKCBIAN, HEEWE BIRO 
CeEMmse., CELCHI4T TA: FVAZKORZCTIHNSO 
Be, P—XVITSEI CHD, 





Gebet zum Gott 


Lieber Gott, Danke, dali dieses Evangelium oder dieses neue Testament 
freigegeben worden ist, damit wir in der LageSIND, mehr tiber Sie zu erlernen. 
Helfen Sie bitte den Leuten, die fiir das Zur Verfiigung stellen dieses 
elektronischen Buches verantwortlich sind. Sie wissen, dafs wem sie sind und 
SieSIND in der Lage, ihnen zu helfen. 


Helfen Sie ihnen bitte, in der Lage zu SEIN, schnell zu arbeiten, und stellen Sie 
elektronischere Biicher zur Verfiigung Helfen Sie ihnen bitte, alle 
Betriebsmittel, das Geld, die Starke und die Zeit zu haben, die sie zwecks sein 
miissen fiir, Sie zu arbeiten zu halten. 


Helfen Sie bitte denen, die ein Teil der Mannschaft sind, das ihnen auf einer 
taglichen Grundlage helfen. Geben Sie ihnen die Starke bitte, um jedem von 
ihnen das geistige Verstandnis ftir die Arbeit fortzusetzen und zu geben, dafs 
Sie sie tun wiinschen. Helfen Sie bitte jedem von ihnen, Furcht nicht zu haben 
und daran zu erinnern, daf Sie der Gott sind, der Gebet beantwortet und der 
verantwortlich fiir alles ist. 


Ich bete, da& Sie sie anregen wiirden und daf Sie sie schiitzen und die Arbeit u. 
das Ministerium, daf sie innen engagiert werden. Ich bete, dafs Sie sie vor den 
geistigen Kraften oder anderen Hindernissen schiitzen wiirden, die sie 
schddigen oder sie verlangsamen konnten. 


Helfen Sie mir bitte, wenn ich dieses neue Testament benutze, um an die Leute 
auch zu denken, die diese Ausgabe zur Verfiigung gestellt haben, damit ich fiir 
sie und also, sie beten kann kann fortfahren, mehr Leuten zu helfen. 


Ich bete, da& Sie mir eine Liebe hres heiligen Wortes (das neue Testament) 
geben wiirden und das Sie mir geistige Klugheit und Einsicht, um Sie besser zu 
kennen geben wiirden und den Zeitabschnitt zu verstehen, dem wir in leben. 
Helfen Sie mir bitte, zu knnen die Schwierigkeiten beschaftigen, dafs ich mit 
jeden Tag konfrontiert werde. 


Lord God, helfen mir Sie besser kennen und zu wiinschen anderen Christen in 
meinem Bereich und um die Welt helfen wiinschen. Ich bete, dali Sie die 
elektronische Buchmannschaft und -die geben wiirden, die ihnen Ihre Klugheit 
helfen. Ich bete, da& Sie den einzelnen Mitgliedern ihrer Familie (und meiner 
Familie) helfen wiirden nicht Angelegenheiten betrogen zu werden, aber, Sie 
zu verstehen und Sie in jeder Weise annehmen und folgen zu wiinschen. Geben 
Sie uns Komfort auch und Anleitung in diesen Zeiten und ich bitten Sie, diese 
Sachen im Namen Jesus zu tun, amen, 


Prayer to God 
Dear God, 


Thank you that this Gospel or this New Testament has been released 
so that we are able to learn more about you. 


Please help the people responsible for making this Electronic book 
available. You know who they are and you are able to help them. 


Please help them to be able to work fast, and make more Electronic 
books available 


Please help them to have all the resources, the money, the strength 
and the time that they need in order to be able to keep working 
for You. 


Please help those that are part of the team that help them on an 
everyday basis. Please give them the strength to continue and give 
each of them the spiritual understanding for the work that you want 
them to do. 


Please help each of them to not have fear and to remember 
that you are the God who answers prayer and who is in charge of 
everything. 


I pray that you would encourage them, and that you protect them, and 
the work & ministry that they are engaged in. 


I pray that you would protect them from the Spiritual Forces or other 
obstacles that could harm them or slow them down. 


Please help me when I use this New Testament to also think of the 
people who have made this edition available, so that I can pray for 
them and so they can continue to help more people. 


I pray that you would give me a love of your Holy Word (the New 
Testament), and that you would give me spiritual wisdom and 
discernment to know you better and to understand the period of time 
that we are living in. 


Please help me to know how to deal with the difficulties that I am 
confronted with every day. Lord God, Help me to want to know you 
Better and to want to help other Christians in my area and around the 
world. 


I pray that you would give the Electronic book team and those who 
help them your wisdom. 


I pray that you would help the individual members of their family 
(and my family) to not be spiritually deceived, but to understand you 
and to want to accept and follow you in every way. 


Also give us comfort and guidance in these times and I ask you to do 
these things in the name of Jesus, Amen,